By Larry Kummer,
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: Scientists and journalists bombard us with news about the coming climate catastrophe, described as certain unless we drastically change our economy. This has plunged many into despair. The hidden key to these forecasts is RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often erroneously described as the “business as usual” scenario. Understanding this misuse of science reveals the weak basis of the most dire warnings (which set the mood at the Paris Conference), and helps explain why the US public assigns a low priority to fighting climate change despite the intense decades-long publicity campaign.
“We’re going to become extinct. Whatever we do now is too late.”
— Frank Fenner (Prof emeritus in microbiology at the Australian National U); Wikipedia describes his great accomplishments), an interview in The Australian, 10 June 2010.
In the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report four scenarios describe future emissions, concentrations, and land-use. They are Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the inputs to climate models that generate the IPCC’s projections. Strong mitigation policies lead to a low forcing level of 2.6 W/m2 by 2100 (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes in RCP4.5 and RCP6.0.
RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions. It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. RCP8.5 is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. It should spur us to act. Unfortunately from its creation RCP8.5 has often been misrepresented as the “business as usual” scenario — and so became the basis for hundreds or thousands of predictions about our certain doom from climate change.
The result of this (part of a decade-long campaign) is widespread despair among climate scientists and more broadly, among Leftists. This misuse of RCP8.5 is a triumph of propaganda, but polls show its ineffectiveness (with climate change ranking at or near the bottom of public policy concerns). Yet each month brings more of the same.
What future does RCP8.5 describe?
“In 2002, as I edited a book about global climate change, I concluded we had set events in motion that would cause our own extinction, probably by 2030. I mourned for months …”
— “Apocalypse or extinction?” by Guy McPherson (Prof Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology, U AZ), Oct 2009.
The papers describing the RCP’s clearly state their assumptions, unlike most of those that follow them. RCP8.5 describes a bleak scenario, a hot and dark world in 2100 (since it’s powered by coal, perhaps literally dark) — even before considering the effects of climate change. Below are the key points, with graphs from “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al in Climatic Change, Nov 2011. See this post for a more detailed look.
Rapid population growth and slow economic growth in RCP8.5
RCP8.5 assumes a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion by 2100, which is the high end of the current UN forecast. The UN gives a purely probabilistic forecast, not considering if the numbers are realistic. For example, this assumes the population of Africa grows from one billion to 5 billion, giving it a density roughly equal to that of China today (which requires a highly ordered society to survive). Nigeria’s population would rise from today’s 160 million to almost one billion in 2100. Possible, but hardly “business as usual”.
While population skyrockets, GDP would drastically slow — producing a massive increase in world poverty (reversing the trend of the past several decades).
Slow tech growth in RCP8.5 takes us back to a 19thC world
RCP8.5 assumes a slowing of technological innovation, most clearly seen in energy use. By 2100 energy efficiency has improved only slightly (reversing the current decades-long trend), so that despite GDP being one-third lower than under RCP2.6, energy consumption is over twice as large. Worse, we will have gone back to a 19th C-like future where the world in 2100 is powered by coal. This is possible, but not a “business as usual” scenario.
How did RCP8.5 come to describe a “business as usual” future?
“With business as usual life on earth is largely doomed.”
— John Davies (geophysicist, senior research at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center), 22 February 2014.
This useful scenario was hijacked to serve the apocalyptic visions of activists. Did this happen from scientists’ deliberate misrepresentation (a noble lie?) or carelessness? Who can say? Here are some examples of climate scientists misrepresenting RCP8.5.
- Wrong from the beginning: “Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity.” From “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011.
- “RCP8.5 assumes a ‘business-as-usual’ approach.” From a guide to AR5 WG1 by Carolyn Symon (PhD, environmental science), by Cambridge U (Sept 2013).
- “The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5, in which global mean temperature could be 4°C or more above pre-industrial times.” By Matt Collins (Prof, Climate Systems at Exeter U) at Climatica, Dec 2013.
- “Under a business as usual trajectory, the IPCC is saying 3.7 to 4.8 degrees by the end of this century“, said by Lesley Hughes (Prof Biology at Marcqarie U, lead author of WG2 in AR4 & AR5), March 2014.
- Ottmar Edenhofer (Prof at the Potsdam Inst, Co-Chair of WG3 for AR5) describes RCP8.5 as the “business as usual” scenario at the IPCC AR5 WGIII press conference, 13 April 2014.
- “What we see so far is that the only business-as-usual scenario among the RCPs is RCP8.5, a high-end business-as-usual scenario.” Said by John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist, Prof Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M), August 2014.
- “for business-as-usual greenhouse gases (RCP8.5 scenario) …” — Said by James Hansen (climate scientists, Columbia Earth institute), July 2015.
- “RCP8.5 is a scenario with unmitigated rise in greenhouse gas emissions.” — Said by Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam U) at RealClimate (Aug 2015). That’s true, but misleading by not mentioning the other assumptions.
Similar misrepresentations are commonplace by journalists and activists, such as these…
- “The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit” by David Roberts (writer) at VOX, 15 May 2015. He describes RCP8.5 as “The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.”
- “The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5” — in an article at Climatica (“You & the experts exploring climate science”).
Tales of nightmares based on RCP8.5
“Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred apocalyptic visions contend.”
— What Mao might say if he were a climate activist.
RCP8.5 became the basis for scores of studies describing horrific futures that appear almost inevitable (since large global public policy changes seem unlikely). But they seldom mention RCP8.5’s extreme assumptions. The following articles are examples of this year’s crop: most are from the past 3 months — part of the campaign to build hysteria for the Paris conference.
These misrepresentations of climate science are examples of the poor conduct by scientists that has characterized the public policy campaign about climate change, and which I believe caused the campaign to fail. That doesn’t mean that climate change will not have awful consequences. Merely that we’ll be unprepared for them.
- Draft summary of the sea level rise section of regulations for New York’s Community Risk and Resiliency Act: “RCP 8.5 … is generally considered to be the “business as usual” scenario.”
- “Ocean acidification in the surface waters of the Pacific-Arctic boundary regions“, Jeremy T. Mathis et al, Oceanography, 2015 #2 — “The continental shelves of the Pacific-Arctic Region (PAR) are especially vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification (OA) … As aragonite in these shelf seas slips below the present-day range of large seasonal variability by mid-century, the diverse ecosystems that support some of the largest commercial and subsistence fisheries in the world may be under tremendous pressure. …The future simulation followed the high-emissions representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 atmospheric CO2 scenario.”
- “End-of-century Manhattan climate index to resemble Oklahoma City today” says the hysterical press release by the Carnegie Institute about a study in Scientific Reports by Yana Petri & Ken Caldeira (Petri is a high school student), 4 August 2015. Based, of course on RCP 8.5.
- “Surge In ‘Danger Days’ Just Around The Corner” by Brian Kahn at ClimateCentral, 12 August 2015 — They describe RCP8.5 as “assuming current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue unabated”, but don’t mention the other assumptions.
- “If nations continue emitting at current levels, most land areas on the planet will be more than 5°C hotter than now by 2100.” Said by Christopher Field, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. He was co-chairman of WG2 of AR5, and is the U.S. nominee to lead the IPCC. (13 August 2015 interview.)
- “It showed that if greenhouse gas emissions continued at their present rate, the Antarctic ice shelves would be in danger of collapse by the century’s end.” From “Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100” in The Guardian (Oct 2015). The underlying study used, of course, RCP 8.5 as its high-end scenario.
- “Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies” Tom Oliver et al, Nature Climate Change, October 2015 — “Under RCP8.5, which is associated with ‘business as usual’ emissions…”.
- “Increasing water cycle extremes in California and in relation to ENSO cycle under global warming“, Jin-Ho Yoon et al, Nature Communications, October 2015. “Both intense drought and excessive flooding are projected to increase by at least 50% towards the end of the twenty-first century…” It uses RCP 8.5 without any description or context, not even the usual mention of “business as usual”.
- “Climate change map shows Boston is an Atlantis in waiting” at the Boston Globe’s website, and the “Surging Sea Ice” interactive graphic at ClimateCentral — which describes RCP8.5 as the “unchecked pollution” scenario (no mention of rapid population growth or the tech slowdown). Both are based on “Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level” by Benjamin H. Strauss et al, PNAS, Nov 2015 — which describes RCP8.5 as the “business as usual scenario”.
- “Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability” by Jeremy S. Pal & Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, Nature Climate Change, in press (gated) — Describes RCP8.5 as a “business as usual scenario”. Reported in Time as “These Cities May Soon Be Uninhabitable Thanks to Climate Change“.
It’s not too late to restart the debate
Every day we begin anew. The public policy debate about climate change can restart if we can get climate scientists to test the models from the first three Assessment Reports. The results from the past quarter-century will give us valuable data about their reliability, and perhaps break the current deadlock.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NY attorney general investigating Exxon over climate statements
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-i…
The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) misled the public about the risks of climate change or its investors about how those risks may hurt the company’s oil business.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the company on Wednesday evening, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents, the attorney general’s spokesman Stephen Barton told Reuters.
The New York Times first reported the news earlier on Thursday. (nyti.ms/1HuEJC8)
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in late October had said she believed the U.S. Justice Department should investigate Exxon for failing to disclose data related to climate change.
Oooh. Our lawyer once warned us that when you sue, the counter suit can be an order of magnitude greater. So suing a company that has more revenue than a lot of countries should carry some risk. Given some of the analysis on WUWT, New York could find itself on the wrong side of a “settlement” issue if Exxon were to choose to get miffed about being targeted. With appropriate gunslingers on both sides, an investigation or lawsuit could bring the whole CAGW house of cards down. (The C is important as I wouldn’t bother to dispute some AGW but I might argue benefits and not Catastrophic as compared to the so called remedies.)
I agree. An evaluation of global warming would be normal concern for any energy company. It would have been irresponsible for Exxon Mobil to ignore the associated issues because they impact forward planning and investment decisions. I fail to understand why it would have been under any obligation to reveal its internal deliberations to the public.
Wait a minute… isn’t global warming supposed to decrease the human fertility rate?
Shhhh….you’re not allowed to compare contradictory claims as long as the “Cause”…er…cause is the same.
Yup. Global warming is also attributed to lower libidos, too. The list is endless of cause and effect continues….
I have no doubt whatsoever that global warming also causes hang nails. Mine are simply atrocious!
My bald spot is getting bigger and bigger ! Darn Glo.Bull Warming !!
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedback is a positive.
Why would anyone want to discuss a negative feedback.
So why do all this cr*p to speed it along?
Agenda 21
The entire planet, and all life on it, has a shelf-life determined by that big yellow ball in the sky. It’s not a question of *IF*, but *WHEN*!. Fortunately my (I suffer from haemochromatosis so maybe one day I’ll be a bag of nails…certainly have a face that looks like one anyway) body will be long gone.
I enjoy watching those who think they can actually make the weather do what they want
Ohmmmmmmmmmm……………
Partly ignorance (some of which stems from over-specialization of researchers), partly herd mentality (yes, it exists in academia), but, not to get too “conspiratorial”, some of it suggests a deliberate agenda to delude the populace: bread, circuses and terror.
Gil Gil Gil . . How many times do the TV talking heads have to roll their eyes in unison at the mention of conspiracy, before you get the message? Humans can’t conspire. If any try, their tongue cleaves to the roof of their mouth, and a big red light flashes at NSA headquarters, till the suspect is apprehended and sent to some hell hole for torturing . . So relax, quit talking about about conspiracy, it can’t happen.
Please pardon my emotional outburst… OMG!!! China has under reported their fossil fuel consumption by ALMOST 20 % for a decade!!! This means that there is even more hidden heat that is bound to come into the atmosphere before 2100 AD. So much more CO2 than the scientists at the IPCC could have guessed. This means, at least, 5 degrees of global warming and the polar bears will die and the oceans will flood the land!
…on the other hand it could mean that the ECS used is much too high and RCP8.5 is nonsense.
Does this increase show up in the Mauna Loa data?
A continues need to lie in such way is of course has good an indicator, as with the industrial scale use of smoke and mirrors, has you can get how much this is really is ‘settled sciences.
That it is proving effective , but in the opposite way than intended , show these people have simply not taken on the message behind the ‘boy who cried wolf ‘ story .
It is actually heartening they manner in which they continue to dance around unable to understand why shooting themselves in the foot is bad idea , instead preferring to shoot themselves in the other foot .
Year from now the smarter ones may well ask themselves where did it all go wrong, they got so close to being ‘king of the hill ‘ only to end up in the gutter .
Well guys you forgot , that ‘you can fool some of the people all the time , or all of the people some of the time , put you cannot foll all of the people all of the time’ Especially when your salesman are fools like ‘Mann’ , ‘Lew paper ‘ etc whose contact with reality was remote at best due to their galaxy sized egos , in contrast to their atom sized scientific ability and standards ,
Double sentence: “RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions. It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. RCP8.5 is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly.”
Sam,
Thanks for catching that! I’ve fixed the original post on the FM website.
There are multiple reasons RCP 8.5 cannot happen. IMO, the switch in AR5 was because the AR4 Ax Bx scenarios were too falsifiable as reality conflicted with model predictions. Careful study of both suggests that IPCC BAU is something like halfway between RCP 4.5 and RCP 6, and roughly equivalent to previous A1b or A2. Essay Hiding the Hiatus has details.
United Nations is out of line with its charter which states:
By its charter United Nations is supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Here are the priorities of the worlds population (Among those able to vote, aware of the query and inclined to vote). Action taken on climate change was dead last:
http://data.myworld2015.org
United Nations IPCC has itself become an international problem of an economical and cultural character.
The economic problem is evident from the vast amount of resources which are allocated to the climate scare – thereby restricting available resources for relief of human suffering by known and real causes within the charters of United Nations.
The cultural problem is evident from the unscientific principles governing IPCC. IPCC is an undemocratic body based on unscientific principles. A body on which they have imposed a mission and a principle to strive for consensus.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
United Nations has created a body, which by its unique position, by the resources allocated to it and by being uncontested by political counterparts must be regarded as a kind of authority body. Hence – on might start to wonder if United Nations is also out of line with human rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng
The human rights states that:
“Article 21
3 The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
http://www.kdun.org/faq/in-what-way-is-the-un-undemocratic/
There seems to be something magical about the year 2050 according to the models because there seems to be an inflection point on all of the graphs under most scenarios. Must be the same magic used to show that the more natural resources that are used the lower GDP growth is.
sea level rise long before there were cars or fossil fuel burning
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1280_720/images/live/p0/36/ys/p036ys5s.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20151102-when-cities-rise-from-the-depths
Ferd, And long before there were buildings like this one. Your example is of land subsidence. You are inadvertently doing a Suzuki.
fuel is not fossil !
Coal is. Plenty of examples of plant matter, fossilised in coal rocks.
Telling tales of doom and scrying the future from the intestines of small furry animals are time honoured trades of the charlatan and witch doctor.
As old as language, living more easily at the expense of the gullible.
I just hate being amongst the gullible , involuntarily by force of government, my taxes are increased and then wasted on bureaucrats and their scam by committee.
The UN is the enemy of every citizen.
Most of our governments have expanded beyond all function or reason, evolving into perpetual bureaucracies, which openly steal from us.
Kleptocracy no less.
CAGW is just the logical conclusion of corrupt bureaus, orchestrated by an international cartel of bureaucrats.
Every freeloaders wet dream, absolute power, with zero accountability.
The beauty of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming overreach, is that it forces us to acknowledge just how corrupt our agents have become.
Everything they touch is corrupted.
Climate Science is a shining example of good enough for government.
All of the above was predicted by president Eisenhower ….Well stated !
Fabius, I think you’re missing the key element regarding RCPs. They started with the end amount of forcing as a given. They didn’t start looking at emissions and consumption and end up at RCP 8.5. Each RCP team was given the forcing at 2100 and asked to develop intermediate inputs for climate models at different times during the 21st Century. Then they were asked to develop a plausible real world explanation of how this could occur. From the abstract of the overview you cite above, “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), a set of four new pathways developed for the climate modeling community as a basis for long-term and near-term modeling experiments. The four RCPs together span the range of year 2100 radiative forcing values found in the open literature, i.e. from 2.6 to 8.5 W/m2. ”
In every paper written by RCP team members they explicitly state that the RCPs are not predictions and are not projections. Their statements seem to be ignored.
Tom,
“I think you’re missing the key element regarding RCPs.”
I don’t understand. What do you say I am missing?
“They started with the end amount of forcing as a given.”
I agree, and I discussed that aspect of their methodology in a comment this morning: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/manufacturing-nightmares-an-example-of-misusing-climate-science/#comment-2064530
“In every paper written by RCP team members they explicitly state that the RCPs are not predictions and are not projections.”
RCPs are scenarios, used as an ensemble input to the models. In that sense each RCP is not a prediction. But they can be appropriately used as predictions by saying, for example, that RCP8.5 is likely if current trends continue (aka it is the “business as usual”). As several designers of the RCP’s (in a broad sense) said:
“Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity.”
— From “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011.
Please help. A little off topic, but is the following statement true?
It is highly likely the net consumption of CO2 through the process of photosynthesis is understated because the IPCC simply assumes all atmospheric CO2 remains in the atmosphere. That totally unscientific assumption ignores the effect of water vapor on atmospheric CO2, and also ignores the response to plant life to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.
fuel origin :
* * *
Anisimov, V. V., V. G. Vasilyev, et al. (1959). “Berezov gas-prone district, and perspectives of its development.” Geology of Oil and Gas 9: 1-6.
Boiko, G. E. (1968). The Transformation of deep Petroleum under the Conditions of the Earth’s Crust. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Campbell, C. J. (1991). The golden century of oil: 1950-2050. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.
Campbell, C. J. (1994). “The imminent end of cheap oil-based energy.” SunWorld 18(4, Dec 1994).
Campbell, C. J. (1995). “The imminent end of cheap oil-based energy.” SunWorld 19(1, March 1995).
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1967). Oil in the Earth’s Upper Mantle. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1971). The Thermodynamic Basis for theTheory of the Abiotic Genesis of Petroleum. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. and J. F. Kenney (1991). “The stability of hydrocarbons in the thermodynamic conditions of the Earth.” Proc. Am. Phys. Soc. 36(3): 347.
Dolenko, G. E. (1968). “The origin of oil and gas deposits in the crust of the Earth.” Geol. Zh. 2: 67.
Dolenko, G. N. (1971). On the origin of petroleum deposits. The Origin of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Formation of the Commercial Deposits. Kiev, Naukova Dumka: 3.
Fuller, J. G. C. (1993). The oil industry today. The British Association Lectures 1993. London, The Geological Society. 53.
Kenney, J. F. (1995). The spontaneous high-pressure generation and stability of hydrocarbons: the generation of n-alkanes, benzene, toluene & xylene at multi-kilobar pressures. Joint XV AIR/APT International Conference on High-Pressure Physics and Technology, Warsaw.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1965). Theoretical Problems of Migration and Accumulation of Oil and Natural Gas. Synopsis of theses for degree of Doctor of Science. Moscow, I. M. Gubkin Institute of the Oil-Chemical, and Gas Industry: 36.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1984). The Abiotic, Mantle Origin of Petroleum. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Krayushkin, V. A., T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney (1994). Recent applications of the modern theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins: Drilling and development of oil & gas fields in the Dneiper-Donets Basin. VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling, Santa Fe, NM, DOSECC: 21-24..
Kropotkin, P. N., Ed. (1956). Origin of hydrocarbons of the Earth’s crust. Proceedings of Discussion on the Problem of Origin and Migration of Oil. Kiev, Academy of Sciences Press, the Ukrainian SSR.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951). “On the problem of petroleum genesis and the formation of oil deposits.” Neft. Kh-vo. 9: 17-29.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1959). Oil, Gas, and Solid Bitumens in Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. Leningrad, State Fuel Technical Press.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1963). Deep Faults and Oil Deposits. Leningrad, Gostoptekhizdat.
Letnikov, F. A., I. K. Karpov, et al. (1977). The Fluid Regime of Earth Crust and Upper Mantle. Moscow, Nauka Press.
Linetskii, V. F. (1974). The Migration of Oil and Gas at Great Depths. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Mahfoud, R. F. and J. N. Beck (1995). “Why the Middle East fields may produce oil forever.” Offshore April 1995: 58-64, 106.
Markevich, B. P. (1966). The History of Geological Evolution, and Petroleum-Content of the West Siberian Lowland. Moscow, Nauka Press.
Odell, P. R. (1984). “World oil resources, reserves, and production.” The Energy Journal 15(Special Issue): 89-114.
Odell, P. R. (1991). “Global and regional energy supplies: Recent fictions and fallacies revisited.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 9(5): 237-258.
Odell, P. R. (1994). “Global energy market: Future supply potentials.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 12(1): 59-72.
Porfir’yev, V. B. (1959). The Problem of the Migration of Petroleum and the Formation of Accumulations of Oil and Gas. Moscow, Gostoptekhizdat.
Porfir’yev, V. B. and V. P. Klochko (1981). Oil-content problem of basement of the Siberia. Geological and Geochemical Principles of Prospect for Oil and Gas. Kiev, Naukova Dumka Press: 36-101.
Raznitsyn, V. A. (1963). “Perspectives of petroleum-content of the Timan-Pechera Region.” Petroleum Geology and Geophysics 10: 27-31.
Simakov, S. N. (1986). Forcasting and Estimation of the Petroleum-bearing Subsurface at Great Depths. Leningrad, Nedra.
Published in, “Special Edition on The Future of Petroleum” in Energy World, British Institute of Petroleum, London, June 1996.
Republished by Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, 1997.
I must confess that I am at a loss to understand the general premise that we should do re-run of the earlier models to see how they fair.
As I understand matters SAR and TAR set out model projections. So we know what those model projections are. We also know that as from SAR, CO2 emissions have been unabated and have risen at or above the BAU rate. So it is easy to carry out the review that the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website suggests should be done.
we already know that all the model runs in SAR and TAR are far too warm and not one of them projected the current ‘pause’
In fact we know that the more recent crop of models are also running way to warm. The much vaunted plot by Dr Spence of the 90 or so climate models plotted against UAH running through to 2013 shows that only 2 models are running cooling than UAH, and only a handful are broadly in line with UAH. That plot consists of models whose runs commenced in 2006. Prior to 2006 the reasonably close model output and reality is a hindcast. The future projections are from 2006 and almost immediately nearly all the models go off target tracking warm.
Unless this current El Nino produces a step change in temperature, none of the 90 or so models will be within the 95% confidence bound by 2019, since the two models which are reasonably closely tracking UAH project rapid warming in 2018!
We have already seen the test. The result is in. The models fail, and fail terribly at that. And we know the reason why, namely none of the models projected the current ‘pause’ and the impact of the ‘pause’ is that real world Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) is far lower than set out in the models. the underlying assumptions upon which the models is run.
Richard,
The point of a test is to get results that both sides accept. You have your opinion of the models, but most climate scientists and (probably) every activist disagrees. We’ve spent the last 2 decades listening to both sides declare themselves to be correct. Let’s try something else.
“So it is easy to carry out the review that the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website suggests should be done.”
Good. Then why don’t you support it?
“not one of them projected the current ‘pause’”
Richard, I suspect you have read (or at least read about) the many studies explaining why that is either not accurate or not dispositive. If not, you’ll find them here (with links & abstracts): http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/01/17/climate-change-global-warming-62141/
“In fact we know that the more recent crop of models are also running way to warm. The much vaunted plot by Dr Spencer … ”
First, “way too warm” is an exaggeration. Second, many scientists consider his analysis flawed. For one example see: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
Third, his analysis is not peer-reviewed. There are many articles by scientists on the web showing the opposite — plus peer-reviewed research doing so (see section e at the end of this for cites with links: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/24/scientists-restart-climate-change-debate-89635/).
“The models fail, and fail terribly at that.”
Comparing hindcasts and predictions using assumed emissions does not produce clear results. Accusations of tuning, bickering about visual interpretation of spaghetti graphs (most of which employs no statistical analysis), valid concerns about the often short periods considered, etc — it’s a long list of reasons why these have not produced clear results.
Instead of tests whose results both side can accept we have a gridlocked public policy debate with people on both side proclaiming their views as if each is the Pope of Science (in fact, even “the” Pope has taken to doing so).
Perhaps you’ve heard of the AA adage: “insanity is repeating one’s actions, hoping for a different result.”
Thanks your further comments.
I would have thought that the starting point of your article would have been to set out the model projections used in FAR, SAR and TAR and to see what they were say for the period 1995 to say 2025. My understanding is that they produced runs out to 2100.
Since there has been no significant change to the rate of CO2 emissions and to the rate of manmade aerosol emissions there is no new data to input into the models on that account. We have insufficient data on the other parameters to adjust what was set in the initialisation of the models when they were run for FAR, SAR and TAR.
Of course, those model runs did not know about volcano eruptions but it appears that these only depress temperatures for a few years, at most, and the temperature quickly rebounds (perhaps in as short a period as 18 months) and the last major eruption is so long ago that volcano eruptions can be ignored when looking at say their performance between 2004 to date.
So what new data would you propose inputting into the models?
To what extent those model projections have been disconfirmed depends upon whether one compares them with GISS, or HADCRUT 3 or 4, CRUTEM 3 or 4, HADSST 2 or 3, BEST, UAH or RSS. There will always be debate as to which is the most appropriate data set to use, when making a comparison, but since the models output airtemps, there is a strong case to use one of the satellite data sets, especially since they have the best global coverage and are not unduly impacted by UHI. But I accept that there will always be debate on that issue, and, if one makes comparison with one of the land based thermometer records and one of the satellite data sets, the reader can make up their own mind as to which comparator.is most suitable.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
You say
Please state in clear and unequivocal terms any “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side”.
I cannot imagine any such test.
Indeed, if there were such a test then it would not be needed because – as Richard Verney says – the models are known to fail and, therefore, they would be being rejected now.
Evidence for the models’ inadequacy is irrefuteable and I again explain why.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
Nearly two decades ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which were greater than observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen here.
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
Richard Courteny,
“Please state in clear and unequivocal terms any “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side”.”
I describe my proposed test here (I consulted with two climate scientists when writing this; both wisely preferred to stay on the sidelines rather then enter the debate): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/24/climate-scientists-can-restart-the-climate-change-debate-win-test-the-models/
Would it help break the gridlock if done? There’s no way to know, but I don’t see other likely alternatives.
“the models are known to fail and, therefore, they would be being rejected now.”
Nice to know that your opinion outweighs that of all those climate scientists. How strange it is that the scientific and public policy debates still continue despite your verdict. /sarc
I can’t imagine why you and those on the other side (who speaking quite like you) believe this debate will come to any useful end. It’s run since 1989, The only trends I see are…
(a) Both sides are in effect SPEAKING LOUDER in the hope that those with different views will be impressed, and
(b) the public policy debate has to a large extent degenerated into a poo-throwing context.
Meanwhile the US public appears to have largely signed out, and we remain unprepared for the almost inevitable repeat of past weather (let alone climate change, when and if). But at least the partisans appear to be having fun. Party On!
My guess is that the weather will decide. Let’s hope the bill is not very large.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
November 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm
The fact is that now observations are below even the error bars of all but one or two model runs.
How anyone can possibly claim that the models are not epic failures is beyond me. Rerun them with actual data if you want, but the results will be the same. They assumed what has in fact happened, ie steadily increasing CO2, but the world has not responded as the models predicted.
They are thus worse than worthless, except to show their assumptions faulty, such as net positive feedback from water vapor and other factors, and that they ignored or downplayed more important factors.
Richard Verney,
“I would have thought that the starting point of your article would have been to set out the model projections used in FAR, SAR and TAR …”
Why is that relevant to this post? If you are referring to my post proposing a test …
(a) It gives the projections of those models in the graph at the top., and
(b) it has links to a score of articles examining those projections…
Here is the WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/24/climate-scientists-can-restart-the-climate-change-debate-win-test-the-models/
The version at the FM website has an updated list of studies at the end: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/24/scientists-restart-climate-change-debate-89635/
“Since there has been no significant change to the rate of CO2 emissions and to the rate of manmade aerosol emissions there is no new data to input into the models on that account. We have insufficient data on the other parameters to adjust what was set in the initialisation of the models when they were run for FAR, SAR and TAR. Of course, those model runs did not know about volcano eruptions but it appears that … So what new data would you propose inputting into the models?”
Too much of this debate is bold talk. As in your previous comment, with all its “we know” statements. Oddly, there are dozens of contradictory “we know” assertions in the debate, all stated confidently.
Run the models with actual data, see the results, and move on. it’s not science if you just claim that you know the results, but don’t actually run the experiment.
A friend mentioned that people now react at parties to mention of climate like they do of religion (“Have you thought of your personal savior”), offers of wealth (“Everyone in my Amway/Mary Kay group is rich”), or life insurance — keep your hands visible, nod while slowly backing away towards the nearest door.
We can do better.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
I wrote
I then justified that statement by providing clear evidence and argument including references to and explanations of two papers one published by me and and the other by Kiehl.
Your response says
In addition to being gratuitously offensive and an example of the logical fallacy of Argument From Authority, your response demonstrates your inability to dispute my clear evidence and argument.
Hence, I take it that there no “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side” whatever you may have suggested.
Richard
richardscourtney
November 6, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Yes, those on the alarmist gravy train would raise the same specious defenses to reruns of models with actual data as they have to those based upon assumptions.
Editor…,
“Instead of tests whose results both side can accept we have a gridlocked public policy debate”
This talk kinda bugs me . I don’t see why someone against taking radical action to combat global warming would not want there to be what you call “gridlock”, which is to say not acting as the alarmist side demands. In that sense, there is not enough “gridlock” for my liking, as actions continue to be taken in various ways . . I want more gridlock ; )
1. From 1850 to 2015 global temperatures have risen 0.7 +/- 0.1 degrees (for the nitpickers, this includes the high-end 0.8 degrees quoted by some). 2. During this same time period, CO2 increased from 280 to 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume). 3. Assuming a linear relation, then doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv should produce (0.7 +/- 0.1)(280/120) = 1.63 +/- 0.23 degrees warming. This is only 54% of the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees! [A recent downshifting to 2 degrees as “dangerous” might reflect consciousness of this “inconvenient truth” – why have the skeptics not jumped all over this decrease by 33%?] 4. But even the IPCC assumes that the relation is not linear, but logarithmic. This means there are “diminishing returns” as CO2 increase: an increase by 100 ppmv produces less and less warming, the higher the initial CO2 level. “Climate sensitivity” applies to a doubling from 300 to 600 ppmv, or from 600 to 1200 ppmv, or from 1200 to 2400 ppmv, or from 280 to 560 ppmv. 5. An increase from 280 to 400 ppmv amounts to 0.515 doublings [The mathematical question is “What is x, if 2^x = 400/280?”Taking logs of both sides gives x.log2 = log(400/280), so x = [log(400/280)]/log2 = 0.515.] 6. Therefore one doubling would produce (0.7 +/- 0.1)/0.515 = 1.36 +/- 0.19 = 1.4 +/- 0.2 degrees warming, assuming that all the historical warming was due only to CO2 and related feedbacks. This is only 45% of the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees, which must be at least a factor of 2 too large. 7. An increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppmv amounts to 0.415 doublings [If 2^x = 400/300, then x = [log(400/300)]/log2 = 0.415], which would produce 0.415(1.4 +/- 0.2) = 0.58 +/- 0.08 degrees warming which has already occurred as part of the historical record. Thus if climate sensitivity is 1.4 degrees, we expect another 1.4 – 0.58 = 0.8 degrees warming as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppmv. On the other hand, the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees predicts another 3 – 0.58 = 2.4 degrees warming, which is at least a factor of 3 too large!!! 8. It should have been obvious that “3 degrees” is way too high, because 0.515(3) = 1.54 degrees. This would be, on the basis of a logarithmic relation, the predicted temperature rise in the historical record. But we already know this is at most 0.8 degrees [see Point 1 above], a factor of 2 smaller. Because of diminishing returns due to saturation of CO2 absorption lines, the error increases to a factor of 3 by the time 600 ppmv is reached. Note that you don’t need complicated computer calculations to understand this; in fact, the computer projections of future warming must be wrong, at least a factor of 3 too high. 9. And if only part of the historical warming of 0.7 +/- 0.1 degrees was due to CO2 and related feedbacks, the IPCC prediction of future warming will be even greater in error. The recent 18-year hiatus in warming, even as CO2 continued to increase dramatically, strongly suggests that natural processes other than CO2 must be involved. 10. From the MODTRAN spectrum shown at Radiative forcing – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , I have calculated that climate sensitivity on doubling CO2 is only 0.52 +/- 0.06 degrees; this includes water vapour and cloud feedbacks. This means that only 0.22 +/- 0.02 degrees of the historical record can be attributed to CO2 and feedbacks, with another 0.30 +/- 0.04 degrees further warming expected as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppmv. Since the IPCC “best value” of 3 degrees still predicts another 3-0.6 = 2.4 degrees warming, it is too large by a factor of 2.4/0.30 = 8. I can send details of my calculations if you contact me at rtaguchi@rogers.com .
[trimmed cut-and-paste remnants. .mod]
The world has actually warmed less than that, and there has been little warming since CO2 zoomed upwards 70 years ago.
In 1995, the warming since 1860 was estimated to be 0.55 degree C (already too high, but upward adjustments have accelerated in the past 20 years). Since there has been effectively no statistically significant warming since then, the extra 0.15 degree C has been invented by “climate scientists”, not produced by Planet Earth or GHGs in its air.
Not sure I understand the point of Larry Kummer’s post. He seems to be suggesting that we go back and see how well the early models did at climate forecasting. But we’ve already done that; see Monckton’s monthly posts on the ‘Pause’. The models have all, to varying degrees, utterly failed to predict global temperatures over the post two decades, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So they have been falsified. End of story.
The apocalyptic fear-mongering prelude to Paris has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with an agenda for ‘global governance’. The American Congress should prohibit the Administration from spending any money to send a delegation to this farrago. Unfortunately, the Puppet President will probably lead it.
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner,
There is a close parallelism between both sides of the climate change debate, with people on both sides proclaiming that their side has clearly won — and that the other side is wrong. After a quarter century of this we have gridlocked public policy, with no resolution in sight.
This gridlocked debate is not only consuming scarce public resources and even scarcer attention (“mindspace” in Silicon Valley-speak), but prevents us from even preparing for the repeat of past weather — as we saw from Katrina and Sandy, and see today in the Southwest.
Let’s try something else. Just for variety.
I do not consider that the scientists on either side proclaim that they have won.
It is the activists that have won (and so proclaim, ie shout that the science is settled and the debate is over) since they have managed to get MSM and the Politicians on their side, even though the science is so obviously not settled, and even though there is no hard evidence that there would be any serious net harm should temperatures rise by 2 or 3 degree C. Further, they have managed to hide from the public the cost consequence of the green folly both financially, economically and socially, and have managed to keep from the debate the obvious benefits of a higher CO2 atmosphere.
It is all political, and political nonsense at that, and has almost nothing to do with the science that has been successfully misrepresented.
Richard Verney,
“I do not consider that the scientists on either side proclaim that they have won.”
Perhaps we have different interpretations of “won” (it’s vague in this context). There are hundreds or thousands of comments like McNutt’s, showing scientists that believe their view about climate change is proven to be so (i.e., that they have won the science debate about climate change).
“The time for debate has ended”
— Marcia McNutt in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, editorial in Science, 3 July 2015. She is an oceanographer and geophysicist. She is Editor-in-Chief of Science, will be the next President of the NAS.
No real dispute here: Richard Verney is right. Marcia McNutt is clearly an activist. Anyone who says “The time for debate has ended,” when the Alarmist claims have been completely debunked, is an ideologue, not a scientist. Shades of Lysenko!
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner,
“Scientist” and “ideologue” are not exclusive categories. Scientists, like other people, often have extreme views about politics — as they and other people often have about religion, and other subjects.