From the “watch the pea under the thimble” department, the IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data
By Dr. David Whitehouse, The GWPF
The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.
There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.
Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-exiting and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.
However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation. It is one thing to speculate what the future climate might be; but for the IPCC to define climate based on data that doesn’t yet exist and is based on expectations of what might happen in the future is fraught with danger.
This strategy places a double emphasis on the temperature of the past 15 years which was not an extrapolation of the previous 15 years, and was not predicted to happen as it did. Since around the year 2000, nature has taught us a lesson the IPCC has still not learned.
With this new definition of climate all data prior to 15 years ago is irrelevant as they are part of the previous climate. Let’s look at the past 15 years using Hadcrut4. The first figure shows 2003-2017.
It’s a well-known graph that shows no warming trend – except when you add the El Nino at the end, which of course is a weather event and not climate. The effect of the El Nino on the trend is significant. With it the trend for the past 15 years is about 0.15° C per decade, close to the 0.2 per decade usually quoted as the recent decadal trend. Before the El Nino event, however, the warming trend is a negligible 0.02° C per decade and statistically insignificant.
The second graph shows the 15 years before the recent El Nino, i.e. 2000-2014. The trend over this period is influenced by the start point which is a deep La Nina year. Without it the trend is 0.03 °C per decade – statistically insignificant. Note that there are minor El Ninos and La Ninas during this period but they tend to have a small net effect.
So which does one choose? The El Nino version that leads to 0.6° C warming over the 30 years centred on the present, or the non-El Nino version that suggests no significant warming? The latter of course, because the trend should be as free from contamination of short-term weather evens — in the same way as they are free from decreases caused by aerosols from volcanoes blocking out the sun and causing global cooling for a while.
The same problem can be seen in the IPCC’s 1.5C report when it analyses the decade 2006-2015 which it does extensively. In this specific decade 2015 is significantly warmer than the other years, by about 0.2°C. NOAA said, “The global temperatures in 2015 were strongly influenced by strong El Nino conditions that developed during the year.” The temperature trend including the El Nino year of 2015 is 0.2°C, that future again. Without the El Nino the trend is statistically insignificant.
To see the future temperature and climate the IPCC envisage in their report consider their Summary for Policy Makers figure 1, (click on image to enlarge.)
The IPCC’s attempt to move the goalposts is highly questionable. Non-existing data extrapolated for assumed temperature trends over the next 15 years should not be part of a formal definition of what constitutes climate.
UPDATE: From the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report, page 4, there is this footnote that defines the IPCC’s erroneous thinking. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The IPCC’s attempt to move the goalposts is highly questionable???”
NO! It is outright, disingenuous fraud!!!
I second tomwys’ comment!
Ah, but is it pure scientific fraud, in the words of super-serial litigant (and thin-skinned ring-bark obsessive) Michael Mann?
No, just kidding. Little about climate politics is pure, much less scientific.
Maybe a surname of Ringschank or Ringhausen would be more appropriate for Mike. 🌳💍
And the Adjustocene Period continues!!! WTH!!!
So the 30 y average is no longer a 30y average, it is a 15y average .
Spin it how you like it is still only an overage of 15y of data.
15 years of real data, plus 15 years of made up data.
Mark,
Fifteen years of adjusted, pretend “data”, plus 15 years of only slightly less GIGO modeling.
They are treating it like it’s data when they don’t even know its sign! Laughable crap dressed up in a lab coat for Hallo’ween.
“Laughable crap dressed up in a lab coat for Hallo’ween.”
A lab coat is the emporer’s new clothing.
That’s what I love about “socialized” science. /s
It’s a shell game where only information which supports the ideology is revealed. It’s lies mixed with half truths. The end justifies the means – honesty, transparency, and full disclosure are not virtues of socialized science.
Plus what they invent for the next 15 years!
X 1000
Putrid, disgusting, despicable, devious. And just scientifically and intellectually simple. Come on all alarmists – defend this deception or forever be treated as fraudsters. My wife would say “You’d better get out of his way – he’s angry now”
and, in my opinion, absolutely to be expected from that utterly corrupt, self referenced, fraud committing pack of shysters.
from the article:
“Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. ”
One BIG problem – the IPCC has NEVER been correct about their modelled predictions (aka “projections”) of future global temperatures – they have never even been close, because their models all run much too hot.
In the vernacular, the IPCC can’t find it’s ass with both hands. These people are not at all credible – they are the Clowns of Climate.
Hey, a new fantasy game. IPCC Climatology.
More exciting than APBA Football.(http://apbagames.com/football). You get to use real stats AND make up your own data. Get your whole family to play along with you.
*Face Palm*
Why do we keep saying the “IPCC” like it’s not real people doing this. Why not call them out by name. Why not list a few of the authors every time the term “IPCC” is used.
Ice extent changes with temperature changes.
100% of all scientists know this.
97% believe temperature changes cause ice extent changes.
3% believe ice extent causes temperature changes.
This is what 100% of the ice core proxy data shows.
It snows more in warmer times when more oceans are thawed and it does get colder after that.
It snows less in colder times when more oceans are frozen and it does get warmer after that.
The Thermostat setting for this self correcting forcing is the temperature that the sea ice freezes and thaws.
That is why the Greenland Ice Cores and the Antarctic ice cores show the high temperatures are bounded at the same limit.
In the coldest of times, the Greenland Ice Cores show temperatures bound at the same upper limit but at a much colder lower limit during the smaller cycles during the long cold. That is because the ice extent does get much larger in the NH during the long cold of a major ice age.
Facts like these are very important in understanding ice ages and warm periods. Everyone seems to only look at external forcing and never consider the earth climate cycles involve mass and spring rates. The mass is the water and ice that takes part in a climate cycle. The spring rates are the snowfall rates that depend on temperature and thawed open ocean areas. Consensus and Lukewarm people never consider that the earth climate system has internal cycles. External forcing sometimes resonate with the cycles and sometimes against the cycles. Ice extent and temperature are always in lock step phase with each other. Cover 10% of the floors in your house with ice and see what the temperature drops to in the rest of the house. Cover 30% of the floors in your house with ice and see what the temperature drops to in the rest of the house. Consider that on a earth size scale test.
If they can decide the past, why not the future?
Those of us who remember the loosening of the concept of ‘climate [change/warming]’ to include temperatures under the sea—which conveniently came just in time to explain away the lack of surface warming—may understand the despair of the headline writer who announced:
Definition of Climate Changing Faster Than Any Time in the Last 1000 Years
LOL Brad – priceless.
I hereby define “personal net worth” to be: my savings & assets accumulated over the past 40 years, plus the $100 million lottery winnings when my ticket hits the number next month.
Good enough for IPCC, good enough for me.
Thank you, Eustace. I’m still smiling as I write this.
Regards,
Bob
Careful, they find a way to tax your future earning today, in future dollars.
Another Paul
Not if he’s already spent it on his private, fortified, paradise island.
Another Paul, they already do this in the UK. I was astounded when the time sheet data of my employees was used to calculate ‘earnings’ and tax charged on that basis. My accountant insisted this was valid, and it actually is a rule by the UK tax office (HMRC).
I was being taxed on projected earnings that had not been invoiced, let alone collected, yet my Australian company is only charged tax once funds are received.
Simple enough to fix by just not submitting timesheets to my accountant, but I was outraged.
He’ll pay in the future.
Eustace, Better hope your government doesn’t take you at your word and tax you for future earnings!
SR
OOPS! I should have read down further before commenting. I hate useless duplication.
SR
So do I
Especially with taxes.
UK already does (see above)
Actually, I was just typing up my take: I’m going to do this with my taxes I’m going to give to Justin “Sock Boy” Trudeau.
Basically, I’ll take my last 15 years of income, average it with my next 15 years of income (most of which, goddess willing, I’ll be retired), and give him an amount equal to his IQ.
@Caligula
So, you’re going to bill him?
Plus what they invent for the next 15 years!
Take that to the bank and get a $100 million a loan.
These people are evil. They will change the data and move the goalposts to get whatever they want.
Next thing you know, the Federal Government will want me to claim my future projected earnings over the next 15 years as potential income and pay the appropriate taxes on it next year.
That’s basically what AMT is …
There simply is no end to the degree of distortion, deception and dishonesty that the UN IPCC and climate alarmist propagandists and their media tricksters won’t resort to which throughly misrepresents the phony world of climate alarmism.
I am not a scientist, I’ll say upfront, but does this not contravene the very definition of science and take it into the realm of astrology and economics? Hazy and impossible to prove or disprove!
More proof they know they are a pack of liars desperately trying to force a round peg into a square hole.
You understand the scientific method far better than the IPCC conmen.
“The next time you apply for a home loan, make sure you include last years salary, and your forecast of your next years income in the average you tell the bank. Mix the numbers together, use bad statistics, and you’ll get a number you want. Never forget to take into account human fantasy when making projections, that’s how you get what you want out of life.” —- Banker acting like the IPCC
It’s “The Minority Report” approach to climatology.
Minority Report? Could you elaborate?
While the sum total added to human knowledge by ‘climate science’ could probably be engraved on a small wooden ball, I’m yet to see any signs of precognition on the part of our learned friends. Prediction having proven too hard for them, they now appear to content themselves with projection—but hey, enough about Lewandowsky. 😉
The movie Minority Report. Using psychics, the government arrests people who “are going to” commit crimes.
Jax
Brad Keyes got the movie inference and illustrated it admirably.
More like “ideation”
and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future….
That’s all they have been able to do for the past 30 years….extend a straight line
$billions on computers…to do something you can do with a $1 ruler…any changes have been from adjusting past or present temps…not from computer models
“However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation.”
Same goes for the original definition of climate.
Andrew
It does appear that if climate is limited to a 30-yr average, it is whether that determines climate, not vice versa. Given year to year variability, it would be surprising not to find that climate changes when you replace the numbers from 30 years ago with this year’s data.
Extrapolating from the past 15 years to the next can easily be shown unjustified.
Some scientists in 1977 worried about a return of glacial conditions, based upon the previous 15 years of pronounced cooling (indeed ~32 years). Yet in the real world, by 1992, some of the same scientists were then worried about runaway global warming. And by 2007, we were well into the “Pause”.
In 1975, we were here:
The models say we would be colder now than in 1975 if not for the miracle molecule:
If not for the miracle molecule, That 70’s Climate Science Show would have lasted more seasons than The Simpsons!
In that case, then the Magic Molecule has been a great Godsend for plants, children and other living things!
Had the dramatic cooling trend of 1945-77 lasted another 32 years, ie until 2009, and beyond, we’d either be producing a lot more magic molecules or starving and freezing in the dark.
If not producing more Pu atoms as well.
You will need to prove that David!
I don’t believe the modern climate models can show a cooling trend without being fudged forcibly to do so.
IPCC basing 15 years of alleged climate on models is an eco-wobbly attempt to use model failures in support of IPCC and EU delusions.
Take the GHG forcing out of the model and you get the model yields the blue curve…
That makes it your model, not the official activist climate models.
Plus, you are guessing. There may be multiple code components interacting improperly.
Remember, “Harry, read me”.
Any functional business would have cashiered such inept programmers and the model designers long ago. They would have brought in engineers to dismantle the climate programs and analyze module results to identify which code modules passed erroneous results.
Nor do businesses waste time coding in “predictions”, like drought, floods, heat waves, etc.
Models are to produce estimates. Skilled analyzers interpret the data to provide possible events.
The repeated failure of climate models exemplifies the inability of the models to replicate or successfully model climate. Worse, the repeated failure of climate models highlights the failures of those who manage or design the models.
Only governments can waste time and money on models that do not work reliably and accurately.
Nor do I believe a “climate model” can work without including H₂O’s evaporation, condensation, conduction, convection and broad spectrums of light frequency activity.
Too bad the IPCC wasn’t using the fake definition back in 1998.
Isn’t this why we do not rely on shamans and witchdoctors?
This is an intellectual plague.
Get away fast, isolate yourself from the dangerously ignorant, stay away as long as you can.
Nice! Given that past global temperatures are based on a small part of the earth’s surface since most of the oceans and much of the continents are not sampled, the new temperature trends are based on even less data than before.
I was going to add: “You couldn’t make it up”, but …
Anthony, a clarification: The new definition of GLOBAL WARMING (not necessarily of “climate”) can be found as Footnote 5 on page SPM4 of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers for SR-15.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
They write:
“5 Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.”
I’ll check the rest of the report.
Cheers,
Bob
To continue, the Technical Summary for that report…
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_ts.pdf
…expands on the new definition in the second paragraph on page 4, under the heading of “TS1: Framing and Context”.
There they write:
“Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (±0.2°C likely range) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (±0.1°C) per decade (high confidence). Global warming is defined in this report as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and a 30-year period. Unless otherwise specified, warming is expressed relative to the period 1850-1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5. For periods shorter than 30 years, warming refers to the estimated average temperature over the 30 years centered on that shorter period, accounting for the impact of any temperature fluctuations or trend within those 30 years. Accordingly, warming up to the decade 2006-2015 is assessed at 0.87°C (±0.12°C likely range). Since 2000, the estimated level of human-induced warming has been equal to the level of observed warming with a likely range of ±20% accounting for uncertainty due to contributions from solar and volcanic activity over the historical period (high confidence). {1.2.1}”
Oy!
Cheers,
Bob
“warming is expressed relative to the period 1850-1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5”
So the base line is from a period over 118 years ago and THAT is an approximation.
Someone please explain why these people should get even one more penny.
An approximation based on very sparse data that had a low accuracy. Wonderful, just wonderful. In other words, they really don’t know how much the “global temperature” has increased since 1900; they are just guessing.
Well… That makes all the difference then.
It’s not a fake definition of climate… It’s just a fake definition of the current climatology.
//Sarc
David, bottom line is, the nincompoops had to redefine “climate” in order to redefine “global warming”.
Cheers.
I think the only word they haven’t redefined is the word “redefine”… Oh wait, they did redefine “redefine”…
LOL!
David, that al depends on what the meaning of “is” is 🙂
That’s even worse.
Bob,
I presume then that by “recent”, IPCC means since 2002-3. But whatever warming happened from 2003-17 was thanks to the super El Nino of 2015-16, and its build up.
Since February 2016, Earth has resumed cooling, so the now trend is down.
I found the more-detailed new definition in the document titled “Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers”
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_approved_trickle_backs.pdf
There, they write:
“Global warming – replace glossary definition with version in SPM Box 1: The estimated increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) averaged over a 30-year period, or the 30-year period centered on a particular year or decade, expressed relative to preindustrial levels unless otherwise specified. For 30-year periods that span past and future years, the current multi-decadal warming trend is assumed to continue.”
Again, it’s a definition of “global warming” not “climate”.
Cheers,
Bob
PS: The new definition is what happens when politicians are allowed to dictate the “science”.
How pathetic!!!
How could any scientist with even the smallest amount of self-respect live with political nonsense like that?
Regards,
Bob
Gotta love their brazenly chutzpaceous admission that the “underlying technical assessment” (the section that kindasorta might be said to retain some vestige of scienciness) is doctored to match the SPMs (the fluff drafted in an unholy line-by-line alliance with gov’t attaches via the Tropicopolitical Method), not vice versa.
As The History of the Climate Debate puts it:
_______________________
1988: IPCC created
The Panel’s function is to periodically provide a big room—ideally in a hotel or resort—where Policy gets a unique chance to tell Science what to tell Policy to do, in a policy-neutral way.
Hope your gig will be here all week, folks!
Anthony, as a belated PS to my first comment: Using the 15-year trend starting at time “x” as a predictor of the 30-year trend also starting at time “x” assumes the 15-year trend is a reasonable predictor of the 30-year trend, does it not?
But as we can see, it is not:
Cheers,
Bob
Don’t play into there hands with “anomaly” data. Always plot the data on a scale identical to a hardware store porch thermometer, or at least half the thermometer.
GogogoStopSTOP, first off, the graph I posted presents 15-year and 30-year trends. It makes no difference to the trends whether they are taken from anomalies or from data in absolute form.
Second, please provide a link to a well-documented dataset of global surface temperatures in absolute form, with the data beginning in 1850 and running to present and I would be happy to include it in my monthly updates. Until that time, you’re wasting your breath complaining about anomalies.
And, for example, because I compare sea surface temperature data from around the globe occasionally, please advise how I would provide a comparison of Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures that’s easy to read and comprehend without using anomalies. See Chapter 2.7 in my free ebook linked below for a further discussion:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf
Regards,
Bob
the clear 70 year signal (3 peaks, two valleys) on the 30 year trends shows that any calculation over a period of less than 140 years isn’t a climate signal. It’s just normal variation.
In signal processing, we usually demand 5 cycles. Let’s see what the climate is in 350 years.
Absurd? Yes, but also accurate. You cannot sample a long period signal with a short window and get anything other than “wrong” out of it.
Bob,
So you’re plotting trends of trends? Sorry, I’m not a math wizard – why do you do that, based on the definition?
How can any organization that claims they are made of scientist go from science to astrology and claim any credibility. Well at least 50% of the people are below average intelligence and 40% more don’t bother to really read the details that give these charlatans 90% of the population. No matter, soon it will cool and they will have to go on to the global cooling scare again.
Even the old International Meteorological Organization definition is more than a bit deficient, as there was history of rather more than the past 30 years, and what the climate was like in 1800 or so was noticeably different than 1930, even if the records were a bit dodgy.
Even using quality raw data, any presumption that warming trends continue indefinitely is unsupported. Most of the claims of long term warming trends with no dips are clearly cooked.
“this footnote that defines the IPCC’s erroneous thinking”
No, it reflects the normal meaning of the word. To re-highlight,
Present level of global warming is defined an the average of a 30 year period centered on 2017.
You define the concept first, and then figure out how to estimate it. The footnote refers to an estimated rise from pre-industrial to 2017.
C’mon Nick. They are using a base line from 1850-1900 that is an approximation. Even you cannot defend that.
Of course it is an approximation. They are trying to estimate the rise from pre-industrial. Because you have imperfect information to quantify a concept doesn’t mean the definition of the concept is wrong.
The concept has no application, if there is not 30 years of real data to define it. The concept does not exist yet in the future. Confusing known climate periods with projected climate periods is the problem.
They are equating real climate with fictional climate, and THIS is illegitimate application of what Nick is calling … “the concept”. There are TWO concepts here — (1) climate and (2) projected climate, and these two are being horribly confused in this ill conceived fabrication that tries to lead people into merging them into the same concept.
It’s bull shit.
With a Capitol B S
No, but the conclusion can be wrong. And the policies persuant.
Nick, read the tables of rewording above and ask yourself if they are high quality science or devious manipulations by scheming minds working to an agenda, with estimates of confidence and certainty that are unsupportable by good scientific procedure. I will not be so unkind as to use expressions like “raving nut cases”, but you know what I mean. The heavy reliance on the subjective guesses of authors is indefensible and a crook technique that I have not seen before in hard science. To me, it reads as a deliberate corruption of established science, a prop they are using to cover an absence or lack of hard data. That is, propaganda technique.
Can you, with your experience, mount a defence for the use of guesswork with subjective estimates of confidence? How do YOU put confidence limits around guesses? Geoff
You can’t estimate global temperatures from this period because it’s not available anywhere unless you use proxies or very limited regional data sets like the CET. Even with proxies global temperatures still not really true.
This main issue is that the IPCC choice a period form a base line that has virtually no global coverage of data for most of it. How anyone can defend this just shows they are not interested in science.
“Because you have imperfect information to quantify a concept doesn’t mean the definition of the concept is wrong.”
The definition of the concept is wrong when it’s NOT based on global temperatures because they weren’t available then and this relies on them being so.
“Present level of global warming is defined an the average of a 30 year period centered on 2017.”
Sooo… the PRESENT level of warming is defined by the future? That’s the normal meaning of the word?
And if they decide to speculate a 10 degree rise in temperature in the next 15 years that means current warming is astounding?
“That’s the normal meaning of the word?”
Yes. The level of global warming in (Jan) 2003 is defined as the average of rise from 1998 to 2017. The level in 2017 is defined as the average trend from 2012 to 2031. It may not be immediately obvious in 2017, but that is what it is.
Then it’s a useless definition (concept) at best, and at worst it’s a damn lie meant to deceive. If you can’t see this, then you are not as intelligent as I thought you were.
No. You can perfectly well define what the trend would be in 2100. You just have to wait a bit to find out. But the definition is fine.
The definition is NOT fine, because it is a big confusion of TWO definitions trying to be forced into one erroneously.
(1) Climate = 30 years of real data
(2) Projected climate = some years of real data + some years of projected data
The two are NOT the same concept. One is based on pure observational input. Two is based on half observational and half best guesstimate. One is pure reality. Two is half real and half fantasy.
Half real + half fantasy = ALL fantasy
Mr. Stokes You said:
““That’s the normal meaning of the word?”
Yes. The level of global warming in (Jan) 2003 is defined as the average of rise from 1998 to 2017. The level in 2017 is defined as the average trend from 2012 to 2031. It may not be immediately obvious in 2017, but that is what it is.”
I am a little confused by this so I would appreciate some clarification:
1) Shouldn’t the 30 year level of Global Warming centered on 2003 be the average of temperatures from 1988 to 2017?
2) If the level in 2017 is defined as the average trend from 2012 to 2031, isn’t that value indeterminate until you have all of the actual temperatures in the range from 2012 to 2031?
“Shouldn’t the 30 year level of Global Warming centered on 2003 be the average of temperatures from 1988 to 2017”
Yes, typo, sorry.
“isn’t that value indeterminate until you have all of the actual temperatures”
Possibly. But we are in 2017 (well, were) and people want to estimate to see where we stand. And you need a best (imperfect) estimate of the right thing, not a better estimate of the wrong.
It’s basically the concept of a centered average. It’s well accepted that a moving average should be attributed to the centre of the time range (a centered moving average). That is as true for 2017 as it is for 2003. The fact that in 2017 we only have half the data is a knock on the quality of the estimate. But to assess 2017, it’s no good saying that it is represented by 1986-2017. That is the estimate for 2003.
But you can’t logically average an undetermined future data into a grouping of empirical data and treat it as equally empirical just by assuming what that future dataset might be is what it will be. It is highly improper to do so and treat it as actual data.
Mr. Stokes:
Thanks for the reply.
To the question “isn’t that value indeterminate until you have all of the actual temperatures” you said:
“Possibly. But we are in 2017 (well, were) and people want to estimate to see where we stand. And you need a best (imperfect) estimate of the right thing, not a better estimate of the wrong.”
What basis would we have for assuming that the “best (imperfect) estimate” is better than the “better estimate of the wrong”?
“What basis would we have for assuming that the “best (imperfect) estimate” is better than the “better estimate of the wrong”?”
It’s like the old story of where do you look for your keys? Where you dropped them, where it’s dark, or down the street, where it is lighter?
” It is highly improper to do so and treat it as actual data.”
So who did that? That is the problem with this stuff – no-one quotes what the IPCC said that is supposed to be wrong. The update did, but that is a footnote to an estimate over a much longer period. The actual IPCC statement is this
” Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming⁵ above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. “
Obviously they allow for quite a lot of uncertainty at either end.
Could you be any more pathetic in defending this nonsense? Even aside from your glaring error in simple mathematics (“The level in 2017 is defined as the average trend from 2012 to 2031″…try 2002-2031 on for size), this spin is absurd even by your standards.
Disgusting, Nick.
Mr. Stokes, you said:
“It’s like the old story of where do you look for your keys? Where you dropped them, where it’s dark, or down the street, where it is lighter?”
I take this to mean that we have no assurance whatsoever that the “best (imperfect) estimate” is better than the “better estimate of the wrong”, but since this is all we have, we are going to use it.
I am not a Scientist nor do I play one on TV, but I think that if you are going to use this sort of method to calculate the 30 year level of Global Warming centered on 2017, you are obligated to make it very clear to all who use this value that it is a low-confidence estimate and should be used with extreme caution.
” you are obligated to make it very clear to all who use this value that it is a low-confidence estimate and should be used with extreme caution”
Well, don’t be hypothetical; quote what they actually say. I did that for this occasion:
” Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. “
Mr. Stokes, you said:
“Well, don’t be hypothetical; quote what they actually say. I did that for this occasion: ‘Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.'”
True, that is what they said about their current estimate of the impact of human activities on Global Warming, but I don’t see how that +-0.2C error in their estimate is in any way related to calculating the 30 year level of Global Warming centered on 2017 since we have no way of knowing (until 2031) what the actual error is in their projections of the temperature from 2018 to 2031. An error of +-0.2C in their projections would seem highly unlikely given the current performance of the existing climate models.
“An error of +-0.2C in their projections would seem highly unlikely”
I presume you mean that estimate is too low. But check the arithmetic. We already have half the data. So a deviation of 0.2 would require a deviation of 0.4 in the second half. That would actually require an error of 0.8 °C/decade in trend, or 8°/Century. I doubt if they used models for this estimate; more likely simple extrapolation. You’d get much the same answer (within the error range) if you assumed constant temperature in the future.
The ±0.2° of course includes the error of the earlier period. But it is still a large range. The point is that they are talking about a lot of years, and uncertainty at the endpoints plays a limited role.
Mr. Stokes, you said: “I doubt if they used models for this estimate; more likely simple extrapolation. You’d get much the same answer (within the error range) if you assumed constant temperature in the future.”
Even if that is true, the question is whether the answer you get has any relationship to the actual temperatures that will occur in the 2018 to 2031 time frame and since there doesn’t appear to be any way of assessing this, I don’t understand how one could have any confidence in a method of calculating an estimated temperatures using 15 years of real data and 15 years of projected temperatures.
” I don’t understand how one could have any confidence in a method of calculating an estimated temperatures using 15 years of real data and 15 years of projected temperatures”
But again, you don’t quote what they are saying, and create a strawman. They aren’t doing that. They are estimating the change over about 150 years. In that range uncertainty that affects the last few points in the range has a relatively small effect.
Nick,
As usual, you are spouting sophistry! That is, you said, “You just have to wait a bit to find out.” That is like predicting a home run before the batter even swings. A lot can happen between the pitch and arriving back at home plate! The definition is NOT “fine” if it has no utility except to scare the public with extrapolations that can’t be verified for 15 years. It reminds me of Hansen’s ‘trick’ of hypothesizing a major volcanic eruption in 2014 to justify reducing the Scenario B and C temps, and then claiming how good his 1988 prediction was, based on something that didn’t happen. That is, the Scenario C (severe mitigation) would have been much higher than actual temperatures had he not introduced a hypothetical eruption that never happened. It is all smoke and mirrors!
The interesting part is given Nicks background he hasn’t mentioned better ways to do the projection, of which there are many and he stays silent on. That thing again of the IPCC not using experts in the field they should be used in.
It’s all sort of moot, only a couple of small Nordic countries have made inroads into there emissions and no politicians in major countries have the political capital to be able to go any further. Grab your popcorn and watch the fun and games in Poland 🙂
I presume you mean that estimate is too low. But check the arithmetic. We already have half the data. So a deviation of 0.2 would require a deviation of 0.4 in the second half.
Nick try doing the arithmetic centered on 1977 only using the prior 15 years and “continuing the (then cooling) trend” into the next 15 years and see if a deviation of 0.2 is justified when you compare your calculated results to the actuals!
Mr. Stokes:
I believe we have reached an impasse in our discussion because you believe I am using a strawman argument by not using the IPCC estimate of Human Impact on Global Warming to assess the accuracy of a method to calculate the temperature of the Climate using 15 real data points and 15 projected temperatures and I believe you are using a strawman argument by quoting the IPCC estimate of the Human Impact on Global Warming in relation to this method as I believe the IPCC estimate of the Human Impact on Global Warming is irrelevant to accessing the accuracy of this method.
Thank you for your patience in answering my questions. One of the reasons I like the Web Site is that knowledgeable people such as yourself are willing to answer questions posed by non-scientist such as myself. I don’t always agree with their answers but I greatly respect their willingness to participate in the discussions on the Web Site.
What is more predictable than climate change trends?
The fact that Nick Stokes would show up to defend this crap statistical method.
Nick is in fact more predictable than climate, while he’s high entropy, the mean of his noise is a very predictable path.
They could have stated the definition better:
The current level of global warming is the point on a linear regression line of the last 15 years of global temperature anomaly data at the last point on the 15-year line, the year 2017.
They are not using any other data or fabricating any data, just defining it in a horrendous way.
They are trying to make look like they are using 30 years of data when they are only using 15 years of data.
15 years of empirical data and 15 years of modeled projection
15 years of highly adjusted empirical data and 15 years of GIGO modeled projection.
I use estimates to scope out the feasibility of a project, but before I spend any money I measure everything first. If I can’t, then I wait until I can. Before spending trillions on mitigation efforts, I would say it’s imperative we do the same with CAGW. But right now, it’s all estimates. If that’s the best we can do (and it probably is right now), then we must wait until we can really measure it. In the meantime we will adapt as we always have. Do you seriously think that a few degrees of warming, even if it happened, would make the planet uninhabitable for mankind?
The problem for this new definition of ‘climate’ is not that it is described and now a new measure.
Yes, these things are true.
The problem is that it is ‘climatology of the gaps’, a faith based identity of something not measured.
As such it is usefull to argue about, but useless to adding understanding.
Until it is ultimately measured.
Lewis,
Yes, this is CACA Young Earth fundamentalism.
If only its adherents could see themselves as others see them.
Thank you, Nick.
I’ve always read your comments, because you occasionally provide some insight, and are almost invariably polite. You seem to be increasingly wrong, however, but I’ve been giving you the benefit of doubt.
This statement in support of such a ridiculous and fraudulent scientific practice reveals your inherent bias in sharp detail.
I no longer need to give you any benefit of doubt nor read your comments, for which I am grateful.
Oh, Nick Nick Nick,
Your grandfather would be ashamed.
As they taught me in engineering school, interpolation must frequently be used.
As they say in court, Extrapolation “assumes facts not in evidence.”
You should just retire, assuming that you do not need the money any more.
Goodness
“When I use a word,” Climate Schmimate said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Climate Schmimate, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Beautiful, Bruce. Thanks for that gem! 🙂
“Since around the year 2000, nature has taught us a lesson the IPCC has still not learned” No, I think the did learn the lesson, hence the change to “climate futures” as half of the baseline. Pretty clever bit of marketing to hedge against cooling.
Mathematically speaking, isn’t a 30-year average that uses the trend of the first 15-year half, just the 15-year average up to the present? You could just as easily use a 60-year trend centered on 15 years from now, with 15 years of data and 45 years extrapolated.
I can’t see what the problem is, They have been fabricating about half the surface data for most of the last 30 years already
This is not much of a change.
If by “fabricating” you mean decreasing the warming trend.
Then you would be correct……
http://www.realclimate.org/images//GISS-adjustments.jpg
Apart from that there is b**^^-all difference to unadjusted data “over the last 30 years”.
Citing GISSTEMP for data rebutting a lack of “adjusted” data? You do seem to lack a bit of self-awareness.
Citing GISSTEMP for data rebutting a lack of “adjusted” data? You do seem to lack a bit of self-awareness.
And the duplicate comment filter is acting up again.
I think this definition is intended as a guide to what is expected in future from the data-adjusting fraternity.
Why not go the whole hog, and just decree that “present” climate is what it will be from now to AD 2100, and dispense with troublesome observations of the past altogether?
Modeled projections show the One True Climate, and data since AD 1850 aren’t to be trusted, let alone believed.