How IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Expensively Failed

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

It is now almost a third of a century since 1990, when IPCC made its first predictions about the weather. Since IPCC (2021) continues to predict the same 3 C° midrange long-term warming (equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, or ECS, broadly equivalent to 20th-century anthropogenic warming from all sources) as in 1990, it is high time someone examined IPCC’s medium-term predictions to shed light on the plausibility of its long-term predictions.

IPCC’s key medium-term prediction in 1990 was as follows –

“Based on current model results, we predict:

  • “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C° per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 C° before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

IPCC also predicted as follows –

This second business-as-usual prediction was that there would be 1.8 C° warming from preindustrial times to 2030. Deducting the 0.45 C° warming up to 1990, the prediction amounted to 1.35 C° or about 0.34 C°/decade. Thus, IPCC predicted 0.3-0.34 C°/decade medium-term warming. However, only 0.14 C°/decade has occurred since 1990 –

But is the business-as-usual scenario the one on which the predictive skill of the models on which IPCC relied should be judged? Here is how IPCC (1990) described that scenario:

“In the Business-as-Usual Scenario (Scenario A) the energy supply is coal-intensive and, on the demand side, only modest efficiency increases are achieved. Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled. For chlorofluorocarbons, the Montreal Protocol is implemented, albeit with only partial participation. Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10-20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 2025.”

The economy indeed continues to be coal-based:

The reason for the continuing and widespread use of coal-fired power is that India and China are exempt from the Paris and related agreements, and are greatly expanding their coal-fired power consumption –

For the sake of the present analysis, we shall largely ignore all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions except those from CO2. The reason, demonstrated by NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse-Gas Index, is that there has been practically no change in anthropogenic forcing by non-CO2 greenhouse gases. In particular, methane continues to be a non-event:

IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario was founded on the assumption that on business as usual CO2 emissions would increase by 10-20% by 2025. The truth, however, is that it is only 2022 and yet global CO2 emissions are not 20% above their 1990 level but 60% above it –

It has indeed been business as usual since 1990, notwithstanding all the rhetoric and all the conferences and all the climate Communists gluing themselves to the road in protest at the continued survival of the hated free West. For some reason, they do not protest against China’s continuing imperialist occupation of Tibet, or against its recent announcement that it proposes to build 43 new coal-fired power stations shortly –

The business-as-usual scenario, therefore, is the scenario on which the predictions in IPCC (1990) should be judged. On that basis, IPCC’s predictions have indeed proven to be childishly absurd exaggerations. The 0.14 C°/decade real-world warming rate since 1990 is less than half IPCC’s 0.3 C°/decade first midrange medium-term prediction and little more than 40% of its 0.34 C°/decade second midrange prediction.

The true decadal warming rate over the past one-third of a century has been so low that it is well below the 0.2 C°/decade lower bound of IPCC’s medium-term prediction. It follows that – to date, at any rate – global warming is not any kind of “crisis” or “emergency”.

It is not just that IPCC’s models have been proven wrong, and yet that IPCC continues to adhere to a long-term warming prediction that is plainly excessive in the light of events. There are well-established reasons why the models are known to run hot. For instance, as Dr Pat Frank has pointed out, climatologists know insufficient statistics to make proper allowance for propagation of known data uncertainties in the models, which, therefore, generate outputs that are proven to be no better than guesswork, as well as plain wrong.

This matters. For global climate policy is based not on the unexciting observed reality, which is that in the real world global warming is slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial, but on IPCC’s and the models’ wildly exaggerated predictions, which have not been cut back to bring them into some sort of conformity with mere reality.

It is worth reproducing Willis Eschenbach’s excellent graph, based on a paper in The Lancet, a medical journal that, like so many, has become a cheerleader for climate panic, showing that on average one is ten times more likely to die of cold weather than of warm weather –

Recently, returning to the West Country from a meeting in London to discuss the daftness of current global warming policy, I found myself opposite an engineering student from Bristol University. When I told him that the models had predicted well over twice as much warming as had been observed over the past third of a century, he was astonished. “But,” he said, “we’ve been told it’s far worse than climate scientists had thought.” Well, it isn’t.

4.8 67 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

239 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Herrnwingert
November 7, 2022 4:06 am

From the Economist this morning (7th Nov):

The Earth’s temperatures over the past eight years were the hottest on record, according to a new report presented in Egypt at the opening session of COP27, the UN’s annual climate summit. The World Meteorological Organisation also said sea levels are rising twice as fast as 30 years ago. After 48 hours of wrangling, delegates finalised the talks’ agenda. For the first time, it includes “loss-and-damage” financing, which calls on rich countries, including those most responsible for historical emissions of greenhouse gases, to compensate poor countries for the consequences of climate change.

Where do they get their data?

Reply to  Herrnwingert
November 7, 2022 1:27 pm

On record includes a small portion of the global warming trend since the 1690s. So we should expect most decades to set a new record. That is how a rising trend is defined. The record decades will continue until the warming trend reverses to a cooling trend. That has always happened on our planet, it’s nothing new.

Anyone who claims the sea level rise rate has doubled is lying. The use of satellites to inaccurately measure sea level is part of that ruse. Tide gauges do not show any significant change in relative sea level. Their records go back to the 1800s

November 7, 2022 7:42 am

Good article — sticks to the point. Only one mention of climate communists. That’s counterproductive — most Communists in the world are NOT Climate Howlers. And few Climate Howlers in non-communist nations are communists. They are socialists. Some are authoritarian socialists, but not actual communists. So calling Climate Howlers communists just makes them stop listening to what they need to hear about always wrong IPCC predictions of doom.

Four additional points:
(1) The IPCC uses models as props to support their climate scaremongering, with no intention of making accurate climate predictions

(2) When models are compared with global average temperature compilations, worst case assumptions are usually used: All observed warming is assumed to be caused by manmade greenhouse gases, not from natural causes of climate change that models try to ignore. That assumption is not likely to be true. Also, the UAH temperature compilation is assumed to be unreliable, simply because it reports less global warming then the surface temperature compilations.

(3) If the IPCC wanted climate predictions that appeared to be accurate, they would highlight best case TCS predictions using. RCP 4.5,rather than worst case ECS predictions using RCP 8.5. … They also let people believe ECS refers to 50 to 100 years in the future, when it actually refers to several centuries in the future. TCS does refer to 70 years in the future. But the IPCC presents their worst case ECS wild guess, and hides their best case TCS wild guess, Even with the radical RCP 8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, the IPCC’s TCS range is not scary enough for climate scaremongering. So you don’t need to know about TCS:

The latest IPCC wild guesses using RCP 8.5:
In several centuries (ECS in AR6): +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.
In 50 to 100 years (TCS in AR6): +1.4 to +2.2 degrees C.

(4) It is impossible to create an accurate climate model. There are far too many climate change variables. The exact effect of each one is not known. CO2 is one of the many climate variables. If a climate model seems to make accurate predictions, that “accuracy” is just an illusion — nothing more than a lucky guess. The current state of climate science knowledge prevents the development of a climate model that is accurate by design. Although one climate prediction developed in 1997, by me, has been accurate: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”.

November 7, 2022 8:30 am

There are many comments arguing about whether the IPCC / IPCC models failed miserably. That always makes me laugh. Because people are assuming the IPCC models were intended for accurate global average temperature predictions. They are not. They are intended to scare people about the future climate, and they have succeeded in that goal.

If the models were intended for accuracy, their revised predictions would have moved closer to reality over the past 40 years. In fact, the ECS range has moved further away from observations (CMIP6 versus CMIP5). And the Russian INM model, that overpredicts global warming less than all other models, gets almost no attention. If accuracy was a goal, the INM model would get 99% of the attention.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 9:52 am

An interesting point you make and one I can accept since there has indeed been a lot of wild scaremongering prediction made by the IPCC over the years and their chronic overheating scenarios never improve after 30 years which is a sign of a failed climate modeling industry since there should have been clear trend of improvements over 30 years.

But instead, we keep seeing the stubborn fact climate models still lacks credible forecast skill to maintain this after THIRTY YEARS using them to drive policy and lie to the public.

It is why I gave up on the IPCC around 10 years ago when they continue to repeat their climate modeling failures as policy support, I can’t support such embarrassment.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 11:41 am

In fact, the ECS range has moved further away from observations”

There are no observations of ECS.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 7, 2022 1:23 pm

There are 172 years of adding manmade CO2 into the atmosphere, since about 1850. CO2 levels were up almost +50%. Global average temperature was up +1.2 degrees C. in that period, with the 1850 average closer to a wild guess than an accurate statistic.

So Mr, Stroker, we have 172 years of temperature data and we were almost half the way to a 100% CO2 level increase in that period.

Those are relevant historical data.
Your comment, however, is irrelevant claptrap.

November 8, 2022 2:54 am

The fact that they are going after methane is proof this is nothing but a power grab. They have to justify the Government seizing the farms. Socialists know they need to control food and energy to control society. It is that easy.

Josh Scandlen
November 18, 2022 6:22 am

Making sure I can post.