By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, a devastatingly simple measure of how well (or badly) the IPCC’s official predictions of global warming are doing.
The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report backdated the IPCC’s predictions to January 2005. The interval of predictions, equivalent to 0.5[0.3, 0.7] Cº over 30 years or 1.67 [1.0, 2.33] Cº per century, is shown in orange.
By now, as a central estimate, there should have been 0.15 Cº global warming since January 2005, a rate equivalent to 0.5 Cº in 30 years, or 1.67 Cº per century, gathering pace rapidly after 2035 to reach 3.7 Cº over the full century.
However, the trend on the mean of the monthly RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies is, if anything, falling, leading to an over-prediction by the IPCC of 0.17 Cº – a sixth of a Celsius degree – in the 111 months January 2005 to March 2014.
The models’ overshoot over 9 years 3 months is equivalent to more than 1.8 Cº per century.
Though the IPCC has finally realized that the models are unreliable as predictors of global temperature change, and has slashed its 30-year projection from 0.7 [ 0.4, 1.0] Cº in the pre-final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report to 0.5 [0.3, 0.7] Cº in the published final version, it has not cut its centennial-scale prediction, an implausibly hefty 3.7 Cº on business as usual (4.5 Cº if you are Sir David King, 11 Cº and a 10% probability of the Earth not surviving the 21st century if you are Lord Stern).
It is also interesting to compare the IPCC’s original global-warming predictions in the 1990 First Assessment Report with what has happened since. At that time, the IPCC said:
“Based on current model results, we predict [semantic bores, please note the IPCC uses the word “predict”, and, if you don’t like it, whine to ipcc.ch, not in comments here]:
Ø “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”
The IPCC’s best-guess near-term warming prediction in 1990 was equivalent to 2.78 Cº per century.
Real-world temperature change in the 291 months since January 1990 has been spectacularly below what was predicted. There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century. The IPCC’s overshoot since 1990 amounts to another 0.34 Cº, or more than a third of a degree in 24 years 3 months, equivalent to 1.39 Cº per century. It predicted double the warming that has actually occurred.
Once again, the IPCC’s interval of predictions for global temperature change since 1990 are shown as an orange region. The lower and upper bounds for its 1990 near-term warming estimate were 30% below and 50% above its central estimate, equivalent to 1.94 and 4.17 Cº per century respectively. The real-world outturn, equivalent to just 1.39 Cº per century, is appreciably below the lower bound of the IPCC’s very wide prediction interval.
In 1990 the IPCC’s “Executive Summary” raised the question “how much confidence do we have in our predictions?” It pointed out that there were many uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
One look at the graph of projection against outturn since 1990 reveals that the IPCC has proven startlingly incapable of predicting the “broad-scale feature” central to the debate about greenhouse gases – the change in global temperature itself.
Here is a question that the legacy media should be addressing to IPCC director Pachauri, if they can distract him from authoring fourteenth-rate bodice-ripping pot-boilers for long enough.
Given global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990, given no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record, and given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, on what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade? Answer me that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do you really think it makes a difference which data set he used? Lord Monckton used UAH. UAH trends the least cool. If he used any of the other data sets the model errors compared to data would be even worse.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/uah/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/rss/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend
scarletmacaw says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:31 pm
…
Do you really think it makes a difference which data set he used? Lord Monckton used UAH. UAH trends the least cool. If he used any of the other data sets the model errors compared to data would be even worse.
***********************
I’m well aware of what each data set shows. In my opinion, he caught justifiable flack for selecting RSS alone, yet could not simply taking the average of all four (which is the WTI index) as it wouldn’t show a zero or negative trend.
@John@EF
Here is a perfect example of the difference between alarmists and science.
MoB did not select RSS – the data did. Scientist look to where the data leads. Alarmist try to lead the data.
Hi John
Would you please kindly show what it shows?
But that gap will be sustained by the thought police control according to Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_print.html
Monckton of Brenchley, thanks, Christopher. As always, you’re a pleasure to read.
Cheers.
John@EF says:
Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next when in each case all 4 major temperature data sets cover the timelines involved? blah, blah, &etc…
There is no getting through to John@EF. He is wilfully obtuse. Lord M has EXPLAINED, repeatedly, exactly why he used that data set, and why he used that time frame. If he changed either one, alarmists like John@EF would make the same kind of trolling arguments. They don’t argue because they are making sense, they argue to avoid admitting that their failed CAGW conjecture is being falsified by Planet Earth.
John@EF still doesn’t get it. His mind is closed tight, like most True Believers. Planet Earth is just not doing what they want or expect. So they reject all real world evidence, and interminably split hairs. It is the only way they have to keep from admitting what everyone else knows: they have been so consistenly wrong all along that they end up sounding like swivel-eyed lunatics, arguing that white is black, ignorance is strength, and runaway global warming is right around the corner.
John@EF needs to either commit himself to the nearest psychiatric facility, or go back to SkS, whichever is closer. Because he is not getting anywhere here with his crazy ideas.
Finally, here is the RSS dataset. It shows clearly what is happening, beginning much farther back in time.
jones says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Hi John
Would you please kindly show what it shows?
**************************
My apologies to scarletmacaw, I stand corrected on 2005+ timeline – I should have looked at his link first. IMO, MoB should have used the WTI index in this thread, and in the invalid “17yr 8 month” thread, and in any other thread with a timeline covered inclusive within the satellite era. I’m asserting there’s no valid reason to keep changing the data sets used. Jones, is there any doubt in your mind why MoB only selected the RSS data set in the “17yr 8 month” thread – that timeline was the basis for my “I’m well aware of what each data set shows” comment?
Thank you for that John
However, I hope you can understand that I am not advocating your position and it should, therefore, be your own assertion to prove.
I am politely asking for you to provide me with what the WTI index shows, nothing more.
Please.
John@EF
You are the sorriest excuse for a commenter I have yet encountered. You have bought the low standards for trolls down even further.
Lord Monckton did not use ‘RSS alone’ in his above presentation. The choice of data set in the above presentation does not change his conclusion, so it doesn’t matter which data set he used, or whether or not he used a different data set here compared to a different post. To make a big deal of an insignificant triviality just shows how weak your position is.
The trolls are making more than usually spectacular asses of themselves this time. John@ur momisugly EF, having been comprehensively answered, wonders why I regularly feature the RSS dataset. As I have previously explained, it is the first dataset to report each month. It is also the most accurate, in that it correctly represents the great El Niño of 1998 at its full magnitude.
The intellectually dishonest technique of sniping ineffectually and then reciting the same feeble point over and over again even after it has been answered merely serves to confirm that true-believers in the New Superstition are not amenable to reason. John@ur momisuglyEF is wasting his time here, but, like Mr Oldberg, he advertises by his clodhopping, hand-dragging illogicality just how worried the Forces of Darkness are at the failure of the world to warm as ordered by the Politburo. There is some value in that, in that it serves to confirm that the truth does one lie in the often spiteful and always unconstructive comments of the trolls, If John@ur momisugly EF wants to do his own graphs, let him do them. But let him know that I shall continue to provide these revealing performance indicators of the models’ failure whether he likes it or not.
John@EF, your response appeared while I was typing my last comment. Are you arguing that Lord Monckton should have used WTI in a previous article? You need to argue that position on that thread, not this one.
WTI is an average of all four data sets, so it includes the non-satellite sets. One can make a good argument that since only the satellite sets are truly global, WTI is not the best choice. In reality it doesn’t make a lot of difference, although GISS is questionable with the constant adjustments of past temperatures in a direction that always increases warming.
Hmmm, might be trivia but I watched a German movie last night, very late at night, and it was called ‘Tornado’ and it was about cold cells colliding with hot cells over Berlin. It was good but the message was early warning systems. With a cyclone Ita heading towards Northern Australia, we have adequate warning systems through our BOM. I have experienced very hot and humid weather, with or without storms, is often followed by extreme storms and drops in temperature.
There really is no gap. It is man made sumilation intolerance, not a real gap.
Quite visible too.
Could someone comment or explain why they labs.enigma data linked in the first comment differs from the data sets that Lord Monckton analyzes? Is it related to land based temperature vs. global, heat islands, adjustments to the data sets, etc? Just wondering how to reconcile the differences. It also would be interesting to see how an overlay of the IPCC predictions would compare to this enigma data.
They own global warming and we should ram that down their throat. Everyone knows climate varies so climate change is a redundant term they adapted and we have to get tough and with every chance, make sure they own THEIR FORECAST OF WARMING
Monckton of Brenchley: “given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade”
Could you define that universe a little more? Does that 11,944 number for scientific abstracts include everything scientific at all, such as, say, magnetotransport properties in gallium arsenide or the genome of the earthworm? If so, it would hardly be startling that the fraction stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade is modest.
scarletmacaw says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:41 pm
John@EF, your response appeared while I was typing my last comment. Are you arguing that Lord Monckton should have used WTI in a previous article? You need to argue that position on that thread, not this one.
WTI is an average of all four data sets, so it includes the non-satellite sets. One can make a good argument that since only the satellite sets are truly global, WTI is not the best choice. In reality it doesn’t make a lot of difference, although GISS is questionable with the constant adjustments of past temperatures in a direction that always increases warming.
*************************************
I’m arguing that MoB use a consistent temperature reference across all threads and that it be an average of the major data sets. It could be WTI, although that index does not include NCDC, so it may not be optimal. I don’t have a problem with MoB’s graph contained in the posting of 3/31 as it was based on the average of all 5 major data set. The timeline for this thread, however, should have been 110 months ending February 2014 to be consistent and represent the consolidated average. MoB’s monthly RSS-only temperature postings are nonsense and are simply an opportunity to repeatedly post a distorted and oportunistic statistical picture. If, for example, the GISS data set showed the longest non-warming least-squared trend, you’d never see MoB posting the RSS-only graph … perhaps the GISS-only graph instead, along with a BS narrative to justify it.
Joe Bastardi says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:19 pm
———————————–
They won’t just own it, they will wear it.
Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
All of the Professional Left from one side of the planet to the other failed. Their shame can never be erased.
The rotting albatross of global warming advocacy and the vilification of sceptics will hang around their necks forever.
John,
I have been gracious in asking please can you tell me what the WTI would show?
I really do not know.
Jones
If John @ur momisugly EF was merely a troll he would be tolerable, but he is far more than your average troil, he’s an idiot also. Most trolls when told, over and over again, that 2+2=4 eventually give up, but John is still asking how much is 2+2. Only an idiot could not understand that 2+2=4 .
It is a travesty that the oceans have been warming and massive el Nino is coming.
I have been trying to find it myself but I think I’m asking the search engine the wrong question..
jones says: April 10, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Thank you for that John
However, I hope you can understand that I am not advocating your position and it should, therefore, be your own assertion to prove.
I am politely asking for you to provide me with what the WTI index shows, nothing more.
Please.
******************************
Here’s WTI Jan 2005-Feb 2014 trend for this thread:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2005/plot/wti/from:2005/trend
Here’s WTI vs. RSS relative to MoB’s ridiculous April 5th (and monthly) RSS trend thread:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996.58/mean:12/plot/wti/from:1996.58/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.58/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1996.58/trend
Thank you John.
Jones