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.
Well, this is not that surprising, really.
Originally, the definition of “climate change” was hijacked by a definition (in the minds of those hijacking the term) that means ONLY “human caused climate change” — they just started leaving out the “human-caused” part, to try to force everybody to talk about ONLY what they wanted to talk about, in the way they wanted to talk about it.
See, by having a select few people redefine a word or phrase, unbeknownst to the general public, these select people can talk about the new term in such a way that the general public thinks that they might be talking about how the word or phrase used to be used, but now is NOT used by those speaking the word or phrase loudest.
This way, when one side argues about “climate change” from one perspective, the select group using the phrase in their own hijacked way, can accuse this opposing side of being a denier, when, in fact this side is NOT even talking about the human part — they are just talking about changing climate in general.
By hijacking language this way, climate alarmists insidiously manipulate words in their favor, by being deniers themselves of the original definitions of words that the general public understood those words to be. This tactic confuses everybody, because basic hidden assumptions of the language being used are not clarified upfront. People, then, do not even know what they are disagreeing about, and one side can claim a victory based on one understanding of the language, while the other side can claim a victory based on a DIFFERENT understanding of the language.
I mean, why even have much of any real data at all ? Why not project the center point fifteen years into the future, and then start the data now, and end it with totally synthesized data for the next thirty years ?
Let’s just define “climate” to mean “a thirty-year pattern of weather patterns that exists ONLY in computer models”? This makes about as much sense as half real data, half computer-projected data. Why have any token real data at all ? That just messes up the illusion.
Very good definition of propaganda. Orwell would applaud, I think.
1984 was supposed to be a warning not a guidebook.
Looks like to me from the graph,(SPM figure 1 above) about year 2050, even if there is “no reduction in forcing” we stabilize out at 2 degrees of warming, no further warming.
So, I guess those CO2 IR bands really do saturated out.
No problem, since at least that first degree or so will have many benefits !
Keep this up an Humpty Dumpty will be suing them for royalties.
Oh my. If only NFL and college football kickers could do the same thing that the IPCC and their fellow climate alarmists are doing to keep the climate scare narrative alive and kicking. If football kickers could put the upright goal posts wherever they pleased during a field goal or extra point attempt, life would be soooo much easier for them.
Three Sundays ago, Green Bay Packer kicker Mason Crosby missed a total of five kick attempts (a mix of field goal attempts and extra points) against the Detroit Lions. One could conceivably argue that it cost the Packers the football game. Unfortunately, Crosby’s bad day at the office received quite a bit of media attention and probably made him feel like burying his head in the ground.
The IPCC and climate alarmist camp need to meet with the NFL and convince the league that the goal posts in football need to be infinitely mobile during the game for the convenience of the kickers. With their expertise in moving the climate scare goal posts, the climate alarmist camp could argue that mobile goal posts would dramatically improve scoring opportunities in football.
Hey, if it works in the climate scare, it will work in football. Mason Crosby would have had a much better day at the office that day in Detroit. Makes perfect sense to me. /sarc
Got it… We’ll use the last 15 years of recorded data (adjusted as necessary) and the next 15 years of “projected” data from the models. Why not just update the recorded data to include the next 15 years, after all they’ve already MADE IT UP!!!
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. –>
this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-existing and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.
“this new IPCC definition”
It isn’t a new definition. It is the ancient and correct usage of a centered moving average.
Nick says, “It isn’t a new definition. It is the ancient and correct usage of a centered moving average.”
Nick, you obviously haven’t bothered to read the IPCC’s SR15 “Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers”, which I posted above.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_approved_trickle_backs.pdf
Scroll forward to the final page (page 16). As quoted above in my comment here…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/29/moving-the-goalposts-ipcc-secretly-redefines-what-climate-means/#comment-2503842
…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.”
Let me repeat it, Nick: “Global warming – replace glossary definition…”
And as I noted here…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/29/moving-the-goalposts-ipcc-secretly-redefines-what-climate-means/#comment-2503933
…David, bottom line is, the nincompoops had to redefine “climate” in order to redefine “global warming”.
Cheers.
“Let me repeat it, Nick: “Global warming – replace glossary definition…””
That is just a notation on a draft, saying to replace that particular text with another version to be consistent with what is previously said in the SPM of the same document. Drafts do change – there are pages and pages listed there. If you think it is an actual change of policy, spell it out. What did the IPCC say before? – quote it. What do they say now? – quote it.
a centered moving average of real + unreal = an unreal centered moving average.
How many different ways to we have to say it to expose the sophistry?
Nick,
No, “the ancient and correct usage of a centered moving average” is to truncate half the data points at the beginning and end of the time series!
https://planetcalc.com/7899/
Nick doesn’t accept new facts that are contrary to his opinion, you are wasting your bandwidth with him.
Indeed. but I’d suggest that the benefit from the expenditure of bandwidth’s isn’t for Nick, it’s for all the others reading the thread.
John Endicott,
Yes, there are some people who actually believe the misinformation that Nick puts out. I think it is worth my time to call him on it, even though he has NEVER admitted being wrong.
“It isn’t a new definition. It is the ancient and correct usage of a centered moving average.”
It’s where it’s centered, that’s the problem. You can’t call it 30 years when you don’t have 30 years of data. Why is that difficult?
“. . . assuming the recent rate of warming continues”. And if it doesn’t?
Mr. Layman here.
I’ve always thought that if an average is going to be used, it should be at least 60 years and not 30 years.
(Or maybe even the average going back into the 1800’s?)
Again, “Mr. Layman here”, isn’t there a 60 year cycle to some weather patterns?
The “present” climate thing seems to be reducing the 30 years to only 15 past years (from 2017) with the rest of the 15 years being climate model projections (a “hot” topic just to heat things up … and get rid of the “pause”?).
(Hmmm…maybe based using the computer in the dashboard of Dr. Brown’s DeLorean?)
“and get rid of the “pause”. The IPCC is attempting to use “Mike’s ‘model’ trick”?
Gunga Din,
I was going to read thru all the comments be for posting but you brought up my same concern being the use of a 60-70 year term to establish a fair idea of what the temperature trend is.
As Bob Tisdale shows in his graphic above (Bob Tisdale October 29, 2018 at 2:47 pm ) the warming and cooling appears much as a sine wave. A 60-70 year time frame ‘peak to peak’ or ‘min to min’ (or for that matter anywhere on the curve(s)) would reflect the same long term trend.
I have a hard time justifying using 30 years and a harder time using 15 years and using modeled future trends just takes the cake. I call BS and outright attempted fraud.
this behaviour by the IPCC is even worse then using proxy data and adding instrumental data onto it at the end. Not only are they comparing different techniques that may have little resemblance. They are making wild suggestions based on failed predictions and these are even placing the goal posts from pseudoscience into religion.
“The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years.”
I have never supported this length representing climate because proxies and temperature data show no stable period this short and regular oscillations that leads to warming and cooling over it lasting at least 60 years.
Climate should be defined a period over 60 years because there are no stable periods shorter than this.
For its recent 1.5 ° C report the IPCC has now changed its name to 30 years for its estimate of global warming and climate change – but now it is the 30th years centred on the present.
___________________________________________________
30 years for climate observation is just too long for the green belivers.
They just want to see how their build up lies collapse during their lifetime.
Who wants to blame them.
lt really smacks of desperation when they have to start resorting to this kind of fudge. lt shows they are getting rattled. What l think is the best way to call them out is to use real data rather then trying to fight them by using their own made up numbers.
For example since 1960 there has been a warming trend in England’s winters. Now l think that this has been due to changes to the weather patterning over this time rather then CO2 levels. The best way to show this would be to combine the use of mean temps with trends in number days of frost and snow cover and then compare it with trends in wind direction. Because if there is a trend of decreasing numbers of days of frost and snow during this warming that is linked to trend of wind direction that has moved away from a NW to east direction and more to SW and west direction. Then that shows that the warming trend has been due to changes to the weather patterning and not CO2 levels.
This observation has and is easily demonstrably shown, but the IPCC ignore all inconvenient atmospheric and ocean patterns.
“For example since 1960 there has been a warming trend in England’s winters. Now l think that this has been due to changes to the weather patterning over this time rather then CO2 levels.”
Definitely after 1963 and this has been down to weather patterns reflecting a change from more negative NAO periods to more positive NAO ones. This comes down to the jet stream where zonal jet stream favours positive NAO and meridional jet stream favours negative NAO.
“decreasing numbers of days of frost and snow during this warming that is linked to trend of wind direction that has moved away from a NW to east direction and more to SW and west direction.”
Northerlies are frequent with negative NAO periods and southerlies frequent with positive NAO periods. Frost and snow frequently occur in winter when in a northerly source of air compared with southerly.
CO2 has not been demonstrated to have any known effects on the NAO, PV (polar vortex), jet stream or high pressure blocks.
Yes this warming winter trend has largely been due to less northern blocking. With less cold air coming from the north and east and a increase of warmer air from the SW.
Averaging weather over a period as short as 30 years was necessary n 1934 because they just didn’t have very much “good” data then, but today it’s a travesty. The definition for climate should have been extended to 100 years by now, even if the earlier data is of poorer quality. Interpreting the results would still be difficult, but at least it would be starting with an honest definition.
Amen.
With our knowledge of ocean cycles (PDO, AMO etc) spanning 70 years plus or minus, defining climate as an average of data over thirty years is ludicrous. But not sufficiently ludicrous for the IPCC. Averaging centred on the present with half the data manufactured simply boggles the rational mind. The old fashioned term “scoundrels” comes to mind.
Thanks for that.
I wondered how 30 years became a standard.
Two phrases come to mind when it comes to changing a standard.
“But that’s the way we’ve always done it!”. That is usually used in the context of needing to improve a standard stuck in a rut.
The other is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”. That is usually used in the context of it works well, why change it just for the sake of “change”?
It looks like the IPCC has screwed both of them up!
Small temperatures in “average” temperature was a dishonest basis for determining climate change from the beginning. The vast majority of climate maps use the Koppen system of climate types. Maryland and Mississippi both have the same climate classification, despite differences in average temperature far more that two degrees.
If there is truly disruptive climate change, then there will be changes to different areas classification. Anyone that claims climate change is a problem should be able to answer the following- What percent of the Earth’s land mass has changed climate types in the last 50 years? How much of that could be argued to be change for the worse (i.e. a desert area becoming semi-arid is an improvement)?
I pretty sure we’ve finally reached the tipping point.
Absolute proof of the failure of climate science. Such a definition change is obviously fraudulent.
The IPCC is not a scientific institute. The IPCC abandoned the scientific method from the very first moment of her existence.
“his” existence? “it’s” existence?
Why slander femininity?
Translation problem: in Dutch we say ‘her existence’ (‘haar bestaan’).
Why this assumption: ‘slander femininity’ before getting an answer on your question?
I would say “its”, no apostrophe.
…..headscratching about the “30” years as base period. In 1932, in Warsaw, the
WMO agreed to propose a period, and because of “round numbers”, they took 1900 to 1930 and agreed on this at Wiesbaden in 1934….. Then in the 80th, they
continued with the magic number 30, avoiding additional work caused by a period change. They should have taken 62 years, in order to take the AMO/PDO-cycle into account, but no. Now they move the 30 years forward, centered on 2017, with half the period still open-ended….and it is easy now to mock this type of science…..
But, what they have not taken into account, see : page of Norman Page or better
still: Holocene Part 8 in: http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
is that a temp plateau emerged (take out the “Nino of 2016 and future Ninos) with the horizontal temp level of 2004 (!!) continuing for the next decades. This would place the new 30 year period right onto this horizontal plateau, which means that this is a great climatological move to have the reference period right onto this important level plateau, which is very useful and makes sense, by taking this level plateau as future measure.
Therefore: Well done!!
Climate is not weather averaged over 30 years. Statistically to get a valid mean and modal distribution the number of samples is considered to be 32, while some say 50. That is where that came from. But, climate is the probability of a thing on any sample scale. For example, the climate for a day can be 32 samples of temperature over a day. Weather is a data point, an instance of a measurement by a particular instrument for the atmosphere. Climate is the probability of that data value occurring. Climate is a pronoun modified of weather.
Donald,
Where did the “32” come from? It has been my experience that the Rule of Thumb for statistical significance is a minimum of 20 to 30 samples. I believe that is based on the fact that, among other things, when calculating variance for small samples, one is supposed to divide by n-1 samples instead of n. The difference between n-1 and n becomes ‘negligible’ around 20 to 30 samples, depending on the application and the need for accuracy. But, there is, to my knowledge, no sharp cutoff, (such as 32). It is a fuzzy boundary. However, 12 samples (monthly) for an annual average certainly fails the Rule of Thumb!
You can’t do that! Charlatons.
”Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get”
The 30 year definition is artificial and quite meaningless. Unfortunately one of the short comings of humans the inability to truly comprehend the reality of planet with an obviously self-regulating climate system which spans unimaginable periods of time. This leads us to point to the sky and complain that it’s a bit warm lately or a bit chilly this year. We can look at a species and know it’s been around for 200,000,000 years but we cannot truly come to terms with the profundity of that fact. In other words the IPPC and their kind are children playing in the sand.
IPCC made climate as fools paradise.
The 30 year period used to define climate — it is not a definition. The IMD, it is called red book.
It contains averages and extremes of all meteorological parameters. Climate does not mean, temperature.
The averages and extremes refer to single met station only and not the averages of stations.
It is the right time to close down the office of IPCC.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Agree wholeheartedly!
Yes but even ”averages” does not mean much. Over what time scale? If you go back far enough and include EVERYTHING, the average temp could be anything! The results will be hollow. It like the average over one day – pointless.
Mike — the normal books present, for example in the case of temperature, dry and wet bulb temperatures at 03 & 12 GMT [this provides inter comparision at country level countries level]; meximum and minimum [the height and the lowest in a day] and their extremes in a month and in a day in a month. Let me give an example:
Hyderabad: 34.8, 20, 38.5, 42.2 oC — monthly mean maximum of March month, monthly mean minimum of March month , the highest monthly mean maximum of March in 30 year period, the highest on a single day maximum of March month in those 30 years. [same way for minimum temperature extremes are presented]
In fact the extremes are not associated with the local conditions — The Sun’s movement — but depends upon the general circulation patterns during summer in the case of maximum extremes and in winter in the case of minimum temperature. In the case of India, these are associated with Western disturbances conditions with respect to high pressure belt position around Nagpur latitude. These have no meaning in national or global level.
These extremes help in local agriculture planning, tourists guide, etc. Have no relevance to global conditions. Global Warming help to mint money by UN agencies, World Bank, and their agents in individual countries but not the planning at local level.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Climate is the average of 30 years of weather. So it’s all made up!
Climate is not the average of 30 years. It is a misnomer. Climate includes averages and extremes for local conditions only for meteorological parameters: rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind, hours of bright sunshine, global solar radiation, net radiation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc.
Rainfall presents a natural variability, accordingly the met variables change. This we get by detailed studies depending upon the need. In India, 2002 and 2009 are deficit rainfall years at all-India level, accordingly the temperature raised by 0.7 and 0.9 oC at all India level.
Normal books [1901-30; 1931-60, 1961-90, etc.] serve general information.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Yes, I think that variance should be considered in the climate parameters because it is conceivable that the mean of any variable might be constant, but the variance could change. That change in variance would be perceived as a different climate because either having different extremes, or skewing of the distribution would affect plants and animals. A single number, such as an arithmetic mean, just doesn’t cut it for describing climate!
I’m all in favor of this approach. I will be using 2013 as the “present” in all of my future climate analyses (and UAH data). A nice negative rate of warming.
Help me out here:
1. To talk about climate almost exclusively in terms of temperature is to miss, I think, two important attributes of climate: rainfall and vegetation.
2. If rainfall/temperature change but the vegetation regime does not adjust can the climate be said to change?
3. When I think of climate change, the US growing area map comes to mind as a surrogate for identifying the climate regions of the US. (I also think of Koeppen.)
4. If it is true that a change in the climate must be seen in the responding change in the vegetation regime––otherwise a short-term warm period would count as climate change–– then it should take very many years for climate change to happen.
5. So, why is a climate confined to any arbitrary time period? How long, for instance, would it take for vegetation found thriving in Central Florida to grow naturally in Central Pennsylvania?
”5. So, why is a climate confined to any arbitrary time period? How long, for instance, would it take for vegetation found thriving in Central Florida to grow naturally in Central Pennsylvania?”
John,
This is what I bang on about a lot. I’m not a biologist but I think the claims made by the warmists that natural systems cannot keep up with this ”rapid” change is fundamentally wrong. I think they are confusing evolution with migration. They seem to think that the biosphere is more or less static. (I also suspect evolution can be a lot faster than commonly thought too but that’s another subject) Plants set seed every year (more or less) and in that seed there is genetic variability to facilitate adaptation with regards to the environment (prevailing climate). Some will be able to tolerate colder conditions and others warmer. I also believe this is an inbuilt mechanism brought about precisely to deal with any natural changes be they rainfall or temperature. So, for example, I can imagine the migration of trees/plants/weeds to be extraordinarily rapid and quite capable of keeping up with non-catastrophic temperature change, or alternatively those which cannot will be quickly replaced by other species which can.
There is no doubt that probably all plants or their progenitors originally evolved in a warmer environment too, as I have trees in my garden which are native to very cold climates setting viable seed. Some of which naturally germinate without help in temperatures several degrees above their native temps. Plants rule the world not animals. Animals follow the plants.
Based on the purpose of study, indices are derived to specify that condition. Historically, climate classifications were prepared for vegetation link, some present drought indices, etc. The human comfort index is defined by temperature, relative humidity and wind speed, etc.
For understanding natural variability cycle, you need the data double to the cycle period. WMO (1966) “Climate Change” presented some of these. For example, if you got 100 years data series, through moving average technique, you can estimate trend if any or cyclic pattern deriving moving average estimates using 10-, 30-, or 60- or any oyther numbers. In the case of dates of onset over Kerala Coast, I used 10-year moving average. This pattern showed that the data series follow a 52-year cycle. The US Academy of Sciences &V British Academy of Sciences used 10-, 30- and 60- years moving average and found in the 60-year moving it cleared the cyclic pattern and presented trend. In rainfall, we rarely find the trend. They principally present cyclic patterns but showed increasing cycle length with equator to moving to higher latitudes. Fortaleza in northeast Brazil presented a 52 year cycle [superposed on this the submultiples] and Durban in South Africa showed 66 year cycle with a sub-multiple of 22-years.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
What bothers me is the refusal of the climate establishment to acknowledge that there has never been a warming trend of 30 years or more since the mid-20th C. IPCC continually refer to the 1950 to 2010 warming trend – there isn’t one. Temps are flat 1950 to 1978, they then escalate through to the 1998 el Nino spike, then don’t do much until the 2016 el Nino, after which we find ourselves back to 1998 levels. We had ‘global warming’ for 20 years – between 1978 and 1998 – when CO2 levels increased in a correlated (not causative) way – but not before or since.