Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5

Guest Essay by Dr. Norman Page

1.The Demise of the IPCC and the CAGW Delusion.

a) Overview.

In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over  the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers. The IPCC’s remit was never to study climate objectively but to support the proposition that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver and that increasing emissions would produce warming with catastrophic consequences by the end of the 21st century. To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment  abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.

The entire vast  UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National  economies is a  prime example of  the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961 he said :

“In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.  The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. “

Politicians were willing to forgo the trouble of thinking for themselves and  forming their own commonsense views on climate so long as their paid scientists gave them scary forecasts to use to regulate economic activity [via carbon taxes EPA mandates, etc].  This symbiotic relationship enabled politicians to reward themselves, their political  friends and corporate sponsors while at the same time feeling righteous about “saving the world”.

Thus, with the enthusiastic assistance of the anti-capitalist movement and a supine or agenda driven  MSM, the CAGW delusion took over much of the Western world as a quasi religion which will not easily fade away even though, as the AR5 science section shows, it has no connection to reality.

b) What’s wrong with the science?

The CAGW meme is built on the outputs of climate models. Many of the modelers and IPCC  and Met Office scientific  chiefs had a background in weather forecasting In spite of  the inability of the weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, in an act of almost unbelievable hubris and stupidity, the modelers allowed  themselves to believe, or at least proclaim,  that they knew enough about the physical processes and climate driving factors  involved to forecast global temperatures for decades and centuries ahead.Indeed, many establishment  scientists appear to think that humanity  can dial up a desired global temperature by keeping CO2 within some appropriate limit. What arrant nonsense!

In practice the modelers have known for some time that their models have no skill in forecasting and have indeed said so in the WG1 reports. The IPCC AR4 WG1  science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what erroneous  assumptions (e.g. that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. This means that the successive SPM  uncertainty estimates take no account of the structural uncertainties  in  the models and that almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case. Here are two examples

Fig1, (IPCC Fig 1.4 2nd Draft)

Fig 2

The key factor in making CO2 emission  control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5  – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)

“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations “

In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive  climate and energy policies.

In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error  and therefore worse than useless.

2.  A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive-  Quasi Cyclic Patterns.How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required .

It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it  is not necessary to understand or quantify  the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.

 When, about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.

a) Night is colder than day.

b) Winter is colder than summer.

c) It is cooler in the shade and  under clouds than in the sun

d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?

e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.

f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.

g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.

I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were  the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine, the amount of cloud cover, the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s considered thought are, at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies  and the emission control policies based on them. However it is necessary ,of course, to go beyond this level of understanding.

Over the last 25 years an immense amount of valuable instrumental and proxy temperature and possible climate driver data has been acquired and it turns out that climate forecasting on the basis of recognizing quasi cyclic – quasi-repetitive patterns in that data is fairly simple and straight forward.  Interested parties should take the time necessary to become familiar with the general trends in both the instrumental and proxy time series of temperature, forcings and feedbacks.

Central  to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.

Here are links to some of the most relevant papers-starting with the hockey stick.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

note Espers comments on the above at

http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf

and see how Mann’s hockey stick has changed in later publications

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

an important paper by Berggren et al relating solar activity to climate is

http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf

and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below  ) is: Steinhilber et al – 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

for Holocene climate variability in general there is much valuable data  in Mayewski et al :

http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Mayewski2004.pdf

Of particular interest with regard to the cause of the late 20th century temperature increase is Wang et al:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf

A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful  reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest  important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)

http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

s

Fig.3

The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the  temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.

The recurring millennial cycle is also seen in the ice core data.

Fig.4
For forecasts on decadal scales the 60 year PDO cycle is clearly  useful. It is generally accepted that it recently shifted from warm mode to a cool mode which should last about thirty years.Fig.5  ( Fig 4 from Easterbrook http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/)

The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.

Fig.6

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3.pdf

Fig.7

Furthermore Fig 8 shows  that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is  the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. –  see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

NOTE !!  the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

Fig.8

The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature  trends.The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present  (Cycle 24) is obvious.

Fig.9

It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.

With that in mind it is reasonable  to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity  and SSN)  with the  peak  in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.

In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com   at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13 I have combined the PDO, Millennial cycle, and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.

Here are the conclusions of those posts.

1/22/13 (NH)

1) The millennial peak is sharp  – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional  years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.

2) The cooling gradient might be  fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at  about 1.2 +/-

3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of  about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees

4)The time frame for the significant cooling  in  2014 – 16  is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

4/02/13 ( Global)

1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17

2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22

3 Built in cooling trend until  at least 2024

4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035  – 0.15

5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100  – 0.5

6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,

7 By 2650  earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.

8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial  – they may slightly       ameliorate the forecast   cooling and help maintain crop yields .

9 Warning !!  There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive  cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.

This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.

.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
pat

o/t but this just released at HuffPo:
links to the new Guidlines:
29 Oct: Huffington Post: Jake Schmidt: Treasury Department to Stop Supporting U.S. Funding for Overseas Coal Projects
The Treasury Department has released revised “coal guidelines” on how they will vote on coal projects brought to them by the development banks. A number of controversial coal projects have been approved by these banks in recent history, including some of the world’s largest coal plants…
These guidelines mean that the U.S. will have to vote no on using U.S. funding for coal projects that lead to more climate change. With clean energy booming around the world these banks should be focused on how to build more wind, solar, and energy efficiency — not more coal projects.
In June President Obama directed the U.S. government to stop using public financing for new coal plants overseas that don’t capture their carbon…
These guidelines (LINK) — Guidance for U.S. Positions on MDBs Engaging with Developing Countries on Coal-Fired Power Generation — are a next step in implementing this commitment to stop using scarce U.S. funding to support coal projects that are driving climate change.
The Treasury Department represents the U.S. at the World Bank Group (WBG), Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AfDB), and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). So these revised guidelines would shape how the U.S. — the largest shareholder at these institutions — would vote on any coal project proposed by these development banks. Over the past 5 years these banks have invested almost $13 billion in coal projects that are driving climate change (see figure) so this is an important signal…
I’ll add more details tomorrow as I sort through the specifics, but here are quick reactions. The guidelines:…
•Don’t require, unfortunately, that these banks stop funding coal mine projects… etc etc
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-schmidt/treasury-department-to-st_b_4175872.html

Txomin

UN global control over the World and National economies…?

The author asserts that the models have no skill in forecasting. Actually, the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.”

ferd berple

Terry Oldberg says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.”
=========
It takes real skill for the climate models to be so consistently wrong.

Jquip

Terry Oldberg: “Rather than forecasting, they “project.””
They don’t have much skill at projecting either.

A model which “predicts”:
* was the product of a scientific methodology,
* is falsifiable and,
* conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions.
A model which, like the IPCC climate models, “projects”
* was not the product of a scientific methodology,
* is not falsifiable and,
* conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions.
Thus, while a model that “predicts” is suitable for making policy, a model that “projects” is unsuitable for this purpose. Currently, policy makers have no models that are suitable for making policy. Nonetheless, policy makers are making policy.

global warming means later on climate change means later on climate disruption!
forecasting later on means projecting later on means…………………..?

Eve

What the ICPP an governments have done is to drive everyone from the north to the south. Those that have legs, that is. Leaving for the Bahamas. Will chat with you later about how much cheaper it is to not have to heat your house.

So, the models do not forecast. ….Rather than “forecasting”, they “project.” Oh, I see! Well, they certainly “project” just as badly as they “forecast”. Given a choice between any one of them and the Old Farmer’s Almanac, one would have to buy the Almanac, if you were doing anything serious.

Geoff Sherrington

a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
……………………….
It’s misleading (for a geologist) to mix changes such as day/night temperature changes with future temperature estimates. Some items a) to d) can be confirmed by temperature measurement, BUT some can not. Milankovitch cycles might be important, but I did not have it taught in my Geology lectures that they controlled earth temperatures. That assertion still has an element of speculation. The geometry of various bodies at various times in the past and future can be calculated or modelled, but it is not fully valid to infer that the effect of this on future temperatures can be predicted because that cannot be verified with adequate accuracy. (For example, a hypothetical concept might include a thermostat type of controller that compensates for geometry changes over time).
You are meeting the type of problem that causes people to construct models for an answer. Sure, in a first round of thought, cycles are likely candidates for influences on global temperatures. What you should be objecting to is the use of POOR models to overcome the problem. GOOD models have a valid place.
While I have no argument with most of your points, I’m suggesting that you have misplaced some emphasis. There should be little emphasis placed on an observed correlation between sunspot counts (or related solar indices) and global temperatures until a mechanistic cause is shown. To date, I suspect that it has not. That should not deter people looking for cause/effect because there is yet more ground to cover.

Zap

“global warming means later on climate change means later on climate disruption!
forecasting later on means projecting later on means…………………..?…”
it means the jig is up.
And it’s time to put all those diverted resource commitments to work in a useful manner.

Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5) shows the peak spike of the MWP at about 1.8 degree C above their baseline, and the top 2 spikes close to WWII at about 1.6 degree C. Smoothed HadCRUT3 shows somewhat over .4 degree C of warming from the ~WWII peak.

albertalad

You touched on CO2 – as you know nitrogen and oxygen make up fully 99% of the atmospheric gases with all the other trace gases making up the final 0.01%. How in any sane universe can a tiny trace gas like CO2, as the IPCC and other AGW believers claim, so completely control the world’s heat content? That is insane. Illogical. No where near possible – yet they claim such super powers for CO2. Why can’t we defeat this ridiculous concept? Their entire warming fantasy is based on CO2. Everything.

Jquip

albertalad: “How in any sane universe can a tiny trace gas … so completely control the world’s heat content?”
Butterflies. Flapping furiously.

albertalad

Lol – Jquip: No doubt real AGW believers would go with butterflies without a thought.

Henry Clark

While in overall agreement with the article, notes include that figure 6 is revisionist data from the CRU of Climategate, such as in its claimed Northern Hemisphere temperature history, disproven by contrast to publications published prior to the political era (as in the subsequent link in this comment).
The “controversial” part for solar effect results from how solar activity history doesn’t match hockey-stick-style revisionist climate history and from how the CAGW movement works hard at trying to cloud the matter, correctly recognizing the greatest threat to them. They’d be comparatively happy if skeptics made a mistake of just primarily blaming multi-decadal ocean cycles. For example, the AMO index is actually a form of temperature index itself by definition, with one temperature index (it) not the ultimate causal factor and explanation for change in another temperature index (global average temperatures).
The AMO index is defined as North Atlantic temperature variation relative to global average temperatures, and northern latitudes tend to warm/cool more than the global average during times of global warming/cooling (MWP, Holocene Climate Optimum, Modern Warm Period, etc). With that, the AMO index usually tends to be higher during times of high solar-driven global warmth and lower during global cooling, but the AMO index (and the PDO) amounts to more of a consequence than a root cause, with some independent component but such limited.
In contrast, when solar activity varies in sync with terrestrial climate, the chain of causation can only go one way (since nothing in Earth’s atmosphere plausibly significantly affects the gigantic distant sun).
There is blatant solar/GCR relationship to the history of temperature, sea level, humidity, glacial extent, and cloud cover, as illustrated in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg
… with tropospheric ionization observed to change by a relatively large amount over even an ordinary solar cycle (5%), extra cloud condensation nuclei forming under extra ionizing radiation (tested in the CLOUD experiment for emulating the atmosphere but the effect a bit like a common tool around since 1912 A.D., a Cloud Chamber: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~adf4/cloud.html ), and low cloud cover changing by 2% in sync with that during even an ordinary solar cycle, as in illustrations in the first link.

Henry Galt

Now all we have to do is find some investigative journalists to start the truth ball rolling. Ethical politicians will read about the contortions the IPCC scientists have gone through to produce their robust projections and command some honest judges to duly process the team and their cause.
Oh, and the UN, NGOs, formerly respected academies and societies, government departments, windmill farmers, PV fiefdoms, carbon traders, chief scientists, activist organizations, ecoloonies and uncle Tom Cobbley and all will soon see the error of their ways, awake to the murder and damage being committed worldwide in the name of their beloved environment, fold their tents and bother the rationalists no more.
There is no /sarc tag. There is despair in my soul.
There are a number of oxymorons in my first paragraph and millions of morons in my second.

Jean Parisot

The Treasury decision infuriates me. It is one thing for we, the rich and comfortable, to delude ourselves and pursue asinine energy policies. But, for us to deny developing economies the access to the cheap energy that they desperately need, is morally vacant.

Scarface

“g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.”
Exactly the reason I stopped believing one word of the warnings about Global Warming.
Up to that point I thought that CO2 was about 15% of the air, based on the alarming news!
When I started to look things up for myself, I turned into a skeptic and will be one until proven wrong.

RMB

The key to the fact that the models don’t work is dead simple, they ignore surface tension. If you attempt to put heat into water through the surface you will find that the heat is rejected. Radiation penetrates surface tension, physical heat does not. There is no such thing as climate “sensitivity” to co2 because of this simple fact. I would recommend that everybody try getting heat through the surface of water using a heat gun, the complete rejection of the heat tells the story. In short radiation yes, heat no.

Leroy

Terry Oldberg says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.”
Oh, really?…….
1. proj•ect
verb: project: “estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends”
synonyms: forecast, predict, expect, estimate, calculate, reckon
Thanks for the clarification.
To further clarify: “I reckon (synonym) that the IPCC and their climate models have been a very bad science project (noun).

jazznick

Txomin says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm
UN global control over the World and National economies…?
=========================================================================
For any others with a short memory.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
The relevant part of the treaty that Obama nearly signed is noted at the end of the article.

Rob

Excellent perspective!

Dr Page
You said;
“In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.”
I was at a meeting at the Met Office last week and can assure you that they do not believe their models are ‘worse than useless’ and the imminent demise of the CAGW meme seems highly unlikely.
tonyb

Norman Page:
Thankyou for your clear and succinct account.
You say

By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)

“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations “

In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.

The IPCC said there is “no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies” long before AR5 but hid it by omitting the statement from its Summaries.
In 2001 the IPCC Reported in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) Chapter 2 from WG3;

no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios.

In plain English this means the IPCC has no idea of what if any effect on climate will result from adopting the economically destructive climate and energy policies the IPCC suggests.
And, to this day, it remains true that “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.
Richard

Dodgy Geezer

@Terry Oldberg
…The author asserts that the models have no skill in forecasting. Actually, the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.”…
Can anyone tell me the difference between ‘projection’, ‘prediction’ and ‘forecast’?

Louis Hooffstetter

Terry Oldberg says:
“The author asserts that the models have no skill in forecasting. Actually, the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they ‘project’.”
Your nit-picking distinction is completely irrelevant. The actual temperatures are now officially outside of of nearly all of the models’ “projections”. The only “what if projection” left is “What if all of the models turn out to be complete failures at projecting future temperature trends?” That’s where we are today.

D. Patterson

Gregg Eshelman says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:22 am
As for Venus, it’s not why does it have the thick atmosphere but why does it *still have* the thick atmosphere when Mars has lost most of its and Venus is so close to Earth in mass it should have at least had its atmosphere blown away to Earth’s level by solar wind.

The conjectural collision with a Mars sized protoplanet likely had much to do with the Earth gaining Luna and a more vigorous iron core generating a stronger geomagnetic field. This seems to have played a role in the massive precipitation of the water vapor in the atmosphere to form the oceans. The precipitation of the water vapor aided the removal of massive quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water vapor as it precipitated into the oceans. The water cycle then helped to recycle even more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make the atmosphere a small percentage of its former mass and former atmospheric pressure. The carbon dioxide was further deposited into the Earth’s lithosphere. By contrast, Venus retained its massive atmosphere of carbon dioxide when it did not experience a comparable chain of events. Mars retained much of its carbon dioxide for similar reasons as Venus, but in a very different set of circumstances.
All of this suggest astronomers searching exoplanets for signs of carbon-based lifeforms should look for planets who have lost their carbon dioxide, ammonia, and methane atmospheres in favor of Nitrogen and oxygen atmospheres.

NeilC

Dr Page
Thank you for your common sense perspective. As you will be aware common sense isn’t that common.

Patrick

I believe the adherence to a quasi religion is right on the nail as despite observations, critical evidence and indeed common sense the ‘warmists’ cling to a seemingly ‘devine’ belief that somehow mankind is responsible for dooming the planet! They appear to want to believe this at any cost and the more the IPCC cling to their projections the more their belief is compounded!!

Jquip

Dodgy Geezer: “Can anyone tell me the difference between ‘projection’, ‘prediction’ and ‘forecast’?”
None. The only difference is the profession of the foreprejector. Scientists and Psychics predict. Weathermen and Pundits forecast. Salesman and Consultants project.

R. de Haan
A C Osborn

NeilC says:
October 30, 2013 at 3:06 am
I think “Common Sense” is a lot more common than you suggest, but it does not fit the Agenda of those that wish to control and those that wish to be part of the controlling structure/process.
Some also have their common sense destroyed by crusades to save mother earth, nature, us from ourselves etc.
I am sure you can think of a few more.

Oatley

This article reminds me of an excellent scientific lecture proceeding on deck 5, while the boat is sinking.
Despite the evidence amassed here that AGW is not a meaningful problem, the EPA will soon be implementing rules requiring both new and existing coal plants be stopped or discontinued. After that comes the exporting of coal. Then automobiles. Then….
My frustration is that notwithstanding all of the credible “skeptical” science, the political/regulatory train is chugging down the tracks and we can’t seem to slow it. Anyone have a bright idea on how to effectively harness the science to stop this insanity??!!

Jim Cripwell

Dr. Page, you write ” To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.”
The Royal Society held a 2 day “love in”: following the publication of the AR5, at which only out and out warmists were invited to speak. It is obvious that all the learned societies who support the hoax of CAGW have absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing their collective minds in the immediate future. It is all very well publishing this sort of criticism on a blog, but it does not actually DO anything. What is required is some significant scientist, who has some gonads, to stand up and be counted. Or whatever, which I cannot think of. Maybe Princeton University could publish a statement against CAGW
So far as I can see, the chances of any of this happening are the same as a snowball’s chances of surviving in Hell.

R. de Haan

Henry Clark –> October 30, 2013 at 12:31 am
The effects of ionization changes are rather large over a solar cycle. Look up the history of Maximum Useable Frequency (MUF) – it details how radio waves bounce off the ionosphere and changes daily with an overall pattern corresponding to sunspot cycles.
When solar activity is very high MUF can run to 6 meters (wavelength) for relatively long periods with occasional peaks as high as 2 meters or less.

Geoff Sherrington

Gregg Eshelman writes – It’s simple but the numbers are very large. Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) at the top of the atmosphere averages 1.361 Kilowatts per square meter.
………………..
Greg, It’s not simple, I’ve been through that type of calculation many times over the years and have written on many blogs about the inaccuracies inherent in a balance where two large numbers (incoming-outgoing at TOA) are subtracted to get that balance, especially when people play fast & loose with error terms.
If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m concerned that there might be as yet no demonstrated mechanism linking sunspot counts to measured global temperatures. IIRC, I first had a look at this correlation around 1990 when I pulled figures from Scientific American and used cross-variogram analysis from geostatistics. I got the best correlation with California’s annual tomato yield. The message here is, correlation is not causation. Again.

DirkH

Terry Oldberg says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
“The author asserts that the models have no skill in forecasting. Actually, the models do not forecast. Rather than forecasting, they “project.””
If CO2AGW science does not make a prediction, then it is not a scientific theory.
(You and I know that it is now; it is a political lie. But thanks for confirming it.)

Ed Reid

The reality of an ensemble of models, all of which produce different future scenarios, is that at least all but one of the models are flawed; and, that perhaps all of them are flawed.

RomanM

The IPCC definitions of their terminology can be found here:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
A loose interpretation of the terms is that a prediction is the “most likely” future situation. If you attach some probabilistic numbers, it becomes a forecast. A projection is a conditional prediction given a “scenario” of conditions.
However, if all of their projections start going off the rails early, which of them is chosen to be the prediction becomes a moot point.

Nigel Harris

Re Figure 7, here is the full HADSST3 global sea surface anomaly series, with Dr Page’s selected 2003-2013 period and its trend highlighted.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend
Does this raise any doubts among this skeptical community?

Dr Page, Good article/summation . Thanks. BUT:
“”9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.””
Doc, this is climate alarmism.
I’ve become leery of ALL doomsayers,
Color me jaded, I guess.

richardscourtney

Nigel Harris:
At October 30, 2013 at 5:25 am you ask

Re Figure 7, here is the full HADSST3 global sea surface anomaly series, with Dr Page’s selected 2003-2013 period and its trend highlighted.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend
Does this raise any doubts among this skeptical community?

Your link (which I have copied) confirms Figure 7, so it strengthens the information provided by Figure 7.
Can you think of any reason why your post could raise any doubts among any skeptical community?
Richard

herkimer

Norman
You forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures, there remain three major climate forcing factors that may shape our climate for the next 2-3 decades, namely a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to possibly changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effects only last for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to a possible 30-35 year cooler period bottoming by 2035/2045 rather than unprecedented warming.
. We are currently and approximately where the planet was back about 1807 and again in 1885, just 2 years past the solar maximums of 1805 and 1883 of the first low solar cycles # 5 and again # 12. These were the first solar cycle in series of three low solar cycles.. The ocean SST and AMO were in the cooling mode heading for troughs by1820 and 1910. The Arctic was cooling as indicated by Greenland oxygen isotope records. What followed according to CET records was a decade or two of cooler winter climate, starting at the end of the first and during the second and third solar cycles.
Below is detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global cooling and warming over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040 like they did 1910 and 1975. A global warming peak like 2005 is not predicted for 60- 70 years or until 2065/2075. So IPCC predictions of continued temperature rise of 1.8 to 4 C by 2100 are not only wrong but very unlikely regardless what their models say. If the oceans are cooling so will the global atmosphere.
I tend to agree with your forecast in terms of a general cooling trend for the next 20-30 years . There is nothing on the horizon that can raise global temperatures as per the latest IPCC forecast
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

herkimer

Norman
You forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures, there remain three major climate forcing factors that may shape our climate for the next 2-3 decades, namely a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to possibly changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effects only last for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to a possible 30-35 year cooler period bottoming by 2035/2045 rather than unprecedented warming.
. We are currently and approximately where the planet was back about 1807 and again in 1885, just 2 years past the solar maximums of 1805 and 1883 of the first low solar cycles # 5 and again # 12. These were the first solar cycle in series of three low solar cycles.. The ocean SST and AMO were in the cooling mode heading for troughs by1820 and 1910. The Arctic was cooling as indicated by Greenland oxygen isotope records. What followed according to CET records was a decade or two of cooler winter climate, starting at the end of the first and during the second and third solar cycles.
Below is detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global cooling and warming over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040 like they did 1910 and 1975. A global warming peak like 2005 is not predicted for 60- 70 years or until 2065/2075. So IPCC predictions of continued temperature rise of 1.8 to 4 C by 2100 are not only wrong but very unlikely regardless what their models say. If the oceans are cooling so will the global atmosphere.
I tend to agree with your forecast in terms of a general cooling trend for the next 20-30 years . There is nothing on the horizon that can raise global temperatures as per the latest IPCC forecast
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

Greg Roane

Dr. Page, thank you! One small question, for clarity: Conclusion 1 states “…Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.”
.
Is it possible to be both + and – 0.25 degrees colder? Or do you mean “up to 0.25 degrees colder” instead?
.
Thank you sir.

I mean roundabout 0.25 colder a bit more or a bi tless cold than that.

“Politicians were willing to forgo the trouble of thinking for themselves and forming their own commonsense views on climate so long as their paid scientists gave them scary forecasts to use to regulate economic activity [via carbon taxes EPA mandates, etc]. This symbiotic relationship enabled politicians to reward themselves, their political friends and corporate sponsors while at the same time feeling righteous about “saving the world”.
Thus, with the enthusiastic assistance of the anti-capitalist movement and a supine or agenda driven MSM, the CAGW delusion took over much of the Western world as a quasi religion which will not easily fade away even though, as the AR5 science section shows, it has no connection to reality.”
Amen to that, brother! That says it all.

Nigel Harris

richardscourtney:
You ask why I think that viewing Dr Page’s selected 2003-2013 trend for SST in the context of the entire 150+ year series should raise any doubts.
Mainly, it is immediately clear on viewing the entire series that the selected period is very short when compared with the natural variability of the data. Too short, in fact, to reliably detect any change in trend. There have been several other 10-year periods with negative slopes, that have occurred within periods when the overall trend is clearly rising.
In context, including both longer history and more recent data, it is clear that alternative interpretations of the underlying trend during 2003-2013 are entirely plausible. This, for example:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970/trend
It is also puzzling why, in a chart created using an online resource with current data available, Dr Page chose to omit any data since the start of 2013. The trend since 2003 is still negative but rather less so. I can only assume the chart was created some time ago.

Tom in Florida

Dodgy Geezer says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:35 am
“Can anyone tell me the difference between ‘projection’, ‘prediction’ and ‘forecast’?”
I’ll try.
Projection: If I get into a car accident on the way home, I could be late for dinner.
Prediction: Working late will make me late for dinner.
Forecast: Because I am working late tonight, I should be late for dinner.