IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Were Even Worse Than We Thought

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

My article on IPCC’s 1990 predictions has provoked such panic among the ranks of the ungodly that I have taken a closer look at the First Assessment Report. Its predictions prove even more wildly exaggerated than has hitherto been realized. For two years, month after month, trolls commenting on my monthly posts about the New Pause have been saying that one should not judge IPCC by its Scenario A (business as usual) predictions. However, a commenter on my recent piece about IPCC (1990) kindly directed me to a table in the Working Group III report, showing the Scenario A prediction for global annual CO2 emissions in billions of tons per year from energy and industry, which sum to 10 BtC yr–1:

The above table gives the actual prediction in IPCC (1990) of 10 bn tons a year of business-as-usual emissions from energy and industry in 2025. Sure enough, like-for-like emissions reached 10 bn tons in 2019, showing that, despite the trillions spent, the dozens of earnest hand-wringing, bed-wetting international conferences of strutters and fretters, the trashing of the West’s energy infrastructure and the consequent transfer of just about all energy-intensive manufacture to China with the loss of millions of working-class jobs in the free world, it is indeed the business-as-usual emissions scenario that the world has chosen to follow.

The reason, as explained in my earlier article, is that large nations like India and China, each with its own space program, can gain a substantial commercial advantage over the feeble-minded Western classe politique by pretending that they are “developing countries” exempt from any obligation under the Paris and related treaties to abate their emissions. The feeble-mindedness is particularly extreme in Britain, where our entire emissions since 1750 are less than just the past eight years of China’s emissions: and yet our daft governing class wants to pay “climate reparations” to developing countries, and to hell with British taxpayers and jobs.

In one respect, my earlier article contained an error. I had cited IPCC (1990) as predicting that, compared with the then present (i.e., 1990), business-as-usual CO2 emissions would be 10-20% greater, whereas the outturn was about four times that. I had been misled by poor drafting on IPCC’s part. Buried in the body of the report was a paragraph making it clear that IPCC had not meant what it had said in its official definition of Scenario A.

The closer reading of IPCC (1990) shows that IPCC’s then outlandish predictions were even further in excess of mere observed reality than had been realized. Even though emissions have been rising at a rate in line with IPCC’s original business-as-usual scenario-A prediction set out in the table above, anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1990 has risen at little more than half the business-as-usual rate originally predicted by IPCC (1990):

The full horror of IPCC’s over-prediction is revealed when one moves from p. 56 to p. 338, where predicted forcings are rebased on the assumption that, though in reality annual emissions by 2020 were already close to two-thirds greater than in 1990, the world would not increase its annual CO2 emissions from 1990 onward:

In short, IPCC made the colossal error of very greatly overstating the radiative forcing to be expected per unit of anthropogenic emissions. Even assuming no growth in annual emissions since 1990, predicted forcing from 1990-2020 exceeded observed forcing by 30%. Yet, on the business-as-usual basis of emissions in line with observed reality since 1990, predicted scenario-A forcing from 1990-2020 was almost double observation.

It is a similar story for growth in CO2 concentration. Observed outturn falls between the predictions for Scenario A and Scenarios B-D, closer to A than to B-D:

However, assuming no growth in annual emissions since 1990, the predicted and observed increases in CO2 concentration from 1990-2020 are close to one another, but the basis for that predicted increase is that annual greenhouse-gas emissions would remain constant at 1990 levels, when in reality a 60-70% increase has occurred.

On the same basis, global temperature predicted by IPCC is well above observation. Even if the world had followed the B, C or D scenarios from IPCC (1990), the predictions would only have matched the 1 W m–2 outturn in forcings from 1990-2020 with no increase in annual emissions since 1990. Yet, though the observed increase was 60-70%, there has been only 1 W m–2 forcing since 1990. Our extra sins of emission since then have had no effect:

Sea level change – the big, scary threat – shows the same pattern. IPCC predicted in 1990 that sea level would rise about 10% faster than NOAA’s itself much-exaggerated observed rate from 1990-2020, but IPCC made that prediction in 1990 on the basis, disproven by events, that the world would not increase its emissions each year compared with 1990:

Conclusions

The official descriptions of scenarios A (business as usual) to D, described in Appendix 1 of IPCC (1990), describe – and differ from one another in – the trajectories of emissions after 1990. They are indeed emissions scenarios. Chiefly because China now does the West’s manufacturing because it builds as many coal-fired power stations as it needs to make electricity affordable, it is the emissions in scenario A that the world has followed since 1990. It is on the basis of scenario A, therefore, that IPCC’s predictions in 1990 should be judged.

On scenario A, IPCC (1990) had predicted 0.3-0.34 [0.2 to 0.5] C° global warming per decade to 2025. However, UAH midrange data show the world has warmed at only 0.14 C°/decade since 1990, while RSS, which uses out-of-date data that yield a higher trend, suggests a midrange rate 50% greater, at 0.2 C°/decade. Both these values are at or below the lower bound of predicted warming under Scenario A.

Here is the punchline. IPCC (1990) predicted 3 [1.5 to 4.5] C° global warming in response to doubled CO2 concentration. Now that we have run IPCC’s business-as-usual experiment for almost a third of a century, and now that it is clear that IPCC’s midrange medium-term prediction has proven to be a 140% exaggeration, IPCC should have amended its midrange ECS projection from 3 to less than 1.5 C°. Instead, it has retained its 3 C° midrange projection, and has actually increased the bounds from [1.5 to 2.5] C° to [2 to 5] C°.

Since predicted radiative forcings from all anthropogenic sources over the 21st century and from doubled CO2 are approximately the same, the true interval of global warming from 2000 to 2100, after correcting IPCC’s exaggerated predictions to bring them into line with mere observed reality, is 1.2 [0.6, 1.8] C°. Deduct the observed 0.3 [0.2, 0.4] C° warming since 2000 and the warming for the rest of this century will be just 0.9 [0.4, 1.4]  C°.

Therefore, no “climate action” is necessary. Even if it were, each $1 billion spent on futilely attempting to attain global net zero emissions would prevent just 1/5,000,000 C° global warming (or 1/2,000,000 C° if you still want to believe climate “scientists’” long discredited and overblow predictions). Will someone tell the strutters and fretters at Sharm-al-Shaikh?

4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Javier Vinós
November 9, 2022 10:17 am

Therefore, no “climate action” is necessary.

And none will be taken globally, judging from history. Countries that impose hard climate measures on their population will receive no benefit for their “virtue,” but will pay a penalty for the privilege of transferring wealth to other countries.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Javier Vinós
November 9, 2022 1:18 pm

The upper class of those countries however won’t pay any penalty- as this sell out has enriched them more than ever.

E. Schaffer
November 9, 2022 10:23 am

It is still a bit unclear what exactly those emission scenarios were. I mean it is not just CO2, but other GHGs as well (NH4, O3, N2O, Halogens..). While scenario A underestimated the actual CO2 emission pathway, those other GHGs remained relatively flat, increasing by less than 1.5% annually.

The question if scenario A underestimated forthcoming emissions is really depending on wether it was about CO2 alone, or it included all GHGs.

bigoilbob
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 9, 2022 10:42 am

CMoB lost this discussion with Nick Stokes and bdgwx in an almost identical post a few days ago. Rather than dig himself in deeper there, he reposted here.

No Mr. Benchley, I’m not a commie. I’m a free marketeer most interested in reducing external corporate costs communized onto the rest of us. That’s because good price information is a hallmark of free enterprise. AGW is a good example of how those signals can get distorted and result in trickle up benefits/trickle down costs….

Charlie Skeptic
Reply to  bigoilbob
November 9, 2022 12:25 pm

BOB, your failure to include societal benefits of an industrial society and CO2’s external benefits to offset wildly speculative costs invalidates your continued anti-corporate rants.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Charlie Skeptic
November 11, 2022 1:38 pm

The “social benefits” were already paid for the fossil fuels were bought. Both the private and “social” benefits were part of the calculation of when and how much of them to buy. And tell us more about CO2’s “external benefits”.

old cocky
Reply to  bigoilbob
November 9, 2022 1:36 pm

It was more a case of talking at cross purposes using emotive language until Mark BLR posted the table.

To CMoB’s credit, he followed up on this and has acknowledged his earlier misconception.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
November 9, 2022 2:38 pm

Your definition of “lost” is as bassackward as most of the things you consider true.

E. Schaffer
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 9, 2022 12:23 pm

And there is another significant issue. According to AR6 the reduction of aerosols caused a forcing 0.37W/m2 (since 1990). Aerosols of course being allegedly negative forcings, their reduction means a positive forcing. I do not know, but I would assume this positive forcing was probably not part of AR1 scenarios. If so, the warming projections were even further off.

old cocky
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 9, 2022 1:44 pm

bdgwx correctly pointed out earlier that the rate of increase of methane and CFC concentrations more closely matches Scenario C/D. Unfortunately, their greenhouse potential doesn’t appear to have been quantified.

A quick and dirty estimate is that their GHP is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher than CO2 and concentrations are 3 to 6 orders of magnitude lower.

PCman999
Reply to  old cocky
November 10, 2022 5:47 am

Resulting in the effect of non-co2 ghg’s being 1 to 5 orders of magnitude lower than CO2 – not worth wasting even a back of an envelope for.

bdgwx
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 9, 2022 4:15 pm

E. Schaffer said: “While scenario A underestimated the actual CO2 emission pathway”

Scenario A was a higher CO2 emission pathway than what actually played out; not a lot, but higher nonetheless.

E. Schaffer said: “those other GHGs remained relatively flat”

Yeah. CFC11 is good example. It’s concentration has actually started to decline. It is about 225 ppt today. Scenario A had it at 325 ppt.

E. Schaffer said: “The question if scenario A underestimated forthcoming emissions is really depending on wether it was about CO2 alone, or it included all GHGs.”

The scenarios include all GHG forcing including but not limited to CO2, CF4, N2O, and CFCs.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Mark BLR
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 10, 2022 4:16 am

The question if scenario A underestimated forthcoming emissions is really depending on w[h]ether it was about CO2 alone, or it included all GHGs.

All scenarii in the IPCC reports, even the FAR in 1990, include detailed “forthcoming emissions” numbers for most GHGs.

The following is from the SPM of the Working Group Three report for the FAR, and shows the “BaU”, or “Scenario A in the Working Group One report”, numbers in the last two columns.

NB : That table is not limited to the first four “CO2 emissions (BTC)” lines …

FAR_WG-III_SPM-Table-1.png
Last edited 2 months ago by Mark BLR
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 10, 2022 1:45 pm

And the radiative forcing plots showed what gases were included, and the contribution they made. I showed Scenario B in this thread, but here is Scenario D, where the plot carries the key:

comment image

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 10, 2022 2:45 pm

Is there some indication for the massive increase in HCF22?

That appears to be rather anomalous.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  old cocky
November 10, 2022 4:34 pm

Yes, that is an interesting one. It is of course an anticipated increase, and shows up in the other scenarios. The reason is that in 1989 the Montreal Protocol severely restricted CFCs, but was more tolerant of HCFC (for ozone), and that was envisaged to be the substitute refrigerant. But subsequently better alternatives were found, and so HCFC22 has been gradually phased out.

That is another reason why the later evolution followed a lower emission scenario.

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 10, 2022 5:53 pm

Thanks.

It would be an interesting exercise to do something like bdgwx did with CO2, CH4 and CFC11 for all the gases in the diagram to see how the actual concentrations compare to the various scenarios.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  old cocky
November 12, 2022 9:02 am

It was the conversion from emissions to forcings that IPCC got wrong. Emissions have followed Scenario A, and certainly not Scenario B (which, from 1990-2020, matches the “no increase in emissions compared with 1990” metric in Table A.15 of IPCC (1990). But IPCC imagined far more forcing per unit of emissions than is tenable, and far more temperature per unit of forcing than is tenable. Comparing the scenario-B forcings or warmings with actual forcings or warmings is pointless, for emissions have followed scenario A.

old cocky
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 3:18 pm

The problem is that you are focussing on emissions and Nick and bdgwx on concentrations.

It’s unfortunate that the same dichotomy appears to exist with at least our politicians.

We should all be thanking our lucky stars that the concentrations are so much lower than the IPCC assumed would be the case.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  old cocky
November 12, 2022 3:53 pm

than the IPCC assumed would be the case”

The IPCC didn’t assume that. They gave 4 scenarios of what might happen, and listed the consequences. They didn’t claim to know what people would decide. They gave a moderate emission scenario B, and said the consequence would be 0.2 C/decade warming. That is pretty much what happened.

Emissions and concentrations are of course linked, one leads to the other. But it is concentration that produces the radiative forcing and eventual temperature rise.

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 12, 2022 4:11 pm

That’s totally confused me now.

aiui, the IPCC underestimated the amount of CO2 (and possibly other gases) which would be removed from the atmosphere, hence overestimated the atmospheric concentrations resulting from the emissions.
As a result, concentrations approximately followed Scenario B&C, while emissions were slightly below Scenario A.

old cocky
Reply to  old cocky
November 12, 2022 5:44 pm

Ahh, I think I’ve twigged to what Nick was saying above

“than the IPCC assumed would be the case”

The IPCC didn’t assume that. They gave 4 scenarios of what might happen, and listed the consequences

That was possibly unclear wording on my part. It was intended as “mis-estimated the airborne fraction for each scenario”, but must have come across as something else.

bdgwx
Reply to  old cocky
November 12, 2022 5:47 pm

I think that is a fair statement old cocky at least for CO2. CH4 and CFCs emissions were definitely well below the scenario A projection and seem inline with concentration we observe today. I think you could be justified in claiming that the IPCC’s understanding of the carbon cycle in regards to CH4 and CFCs was better than that of CO2.

I did the integration of both scenario and actual CO2 emissions and the difference in the amount of ppm put the atmosphere was small. It was 251 GtC (118 ppm) for scenario A and 238 GtC (112 ppm) for actual though 2020. For the ppm that stays in the atmosphere the scenario expectation was 85 ppm whereas the actual was 60 ppm. The IPCC expected a sink ratio of (118-85) / 118 = 28%. The actual sink ratio was (112-60) / 112 = 46%.

Had the IPCC better understood how CO2 gets sinked into the hydrosphere and biosphere they probably could have constructed better scenarios. I don’t know for sure, but I have a hunch that it was a higher biosphere sink that accounts for most of the difference.

old cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
November 12, 2022 6:25 pm

Thanks for doing that work – it’s all useful info.

Do you know whether the IPCC has revised the sink rates for later reports, or do the RCPx.y scenarios work with concentrations in preference to the rather difficult to quantify emissions?

On a somewhat cynical note, my suspicion is that the CH4 emissions were derived by back-formation from the concentrations.

Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 10:38 am

“IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Were Even Worse Than We Thought”
Climate Howlers started with a conclusion in the1979 Charney Report.
That became the official ECS wild guess, and it has barely changed since then.

There are no predictions based on climate models.
There are managment dictated conclusions.
The conclusions were determined by “management” (governments) in 1979.
The computer games only have to be programmed to generally agree with the desired conclusion. The Russians didn’t buy into the conclusion — they are the one exception, that gets almost no attention.

There are no climate models.
There are only computer games.
There must be a strong knowledge of what every climate change variable does to create a model of the climate on our planet. That knowledge does not exist. Therefore, if a computer game appears to make a good prediction, it is just a lucky guess, not good science.

Computer games are science-like props, operated by scientists, to support CAGW propaganda. And they work for that purpose. The scientist Climate Howlers know that. When we attack model accuracy, their only response is to say the models when used for TCS, rather than ECS, using RCP 4.5, rather than RCP 8.5, are pretty good. Zeke H. used those two “adjustments” to defend the beloved “models”. And never mind that the IPCC promotes ECS with RCP 8.5.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 2:42 pm

Political polls use selected sampling of inputs which are then adjusted by assumptions to predict outcomes.

As we’ve just seen, these poll model results significantly over stated the realities of voter sentiments.

What do these over- heated modeled predictions remind us of?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mr.
November 10, 2022 4:56 pm

these poll model results significantly over stated the realities of voter sentiments

Actually, the mainstream polls did very well.

PCman999
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2022 5:54 am

Exactly – defend the con game with RCP4.5, promote with RCP8.5 and have friends in the media scare everyone into submission with doomsday stories that couldn’t possibly happen, even 2 or 3 centuries hence.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
November 9, 2022 10:39 am

Few are listening because the voice of reason is being censored. The Marxists have gained control of the MSM ….. not a theory, just read the paper or watch TV. Only the internet can save us now and ‘they’ are trying to control that as well. Constant propaganda about the perils of AGW are numbing everyone to what the truth is.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
November 9, 2022 1:20 pm

I just watched Ale Gore at COP27 on TV. The interviewer threw him some softballs.

doonman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2022 3:10 pm

Did Al repeat his assertion that the earth’s core temperature is “Millions of degrees”?

Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 10, 2022 11:31 am

The interviewer had soft balls?
(Most of them do)

Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 10:42 am

Very good article
Focus on one point
No one called a climate Communist
yet … ha ha

bigoilbob
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 12, 2022 9:06 am

Yah, he might have been shamed off that. At least temporarily, per “yet”….

Rud Istvan
November 9, 2022 10:42 am

The IPCC has gotten almost nothing right from its inception. It has always been about climate fear mongering based on shoddy (or worse) ‘science’.

  1. Manufactured ‘consensus’ except among ‘climate deniers’.
  2. Bogus hockey sticks.
  3. Polar bears threatened—except they depend on spring sea ice during the seal whelping season, which even IPCC said would not disappear.
  4. Sea level rise would accelerate, except it hasn’t.
  5. Vanuatu and Tuvalu would disappear, except they haven’t.

There is a basic reason everything is off. The IPCC charter concerns anthropogenic emission impacts, so it largely ignores natural variation. This despite the fact that AR4 WG1 SPM figure four showed it exists and is significant.

Graham
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 9, 2022 12:05 pm

Well said Rud .
The compliant news media have a lot to answer for pushing scary stories for what gain to humanity .
As Chris Monkton has shown the IPPCC projections were wrong as they were based on politics instead of science .
Here is no climate emergency because if there really was the UN wold be encouraging the building of Nuclear power plants which once built are emission free .
It is really that simple .8 billion people on this planet cannot be fed ,housed without affordable energy .
That is a fact .UN take note .

Richard Greene
Reply to  Graham
November 9, 2022 2:30 pm

“There is no climate emergency because if there really was the UN would be encouraging the building of Nuclear power plants which once built are emission free .”

I don’t agree. Th econuts began turning against nuclear power on March 28, 1979 (Three Mile Island) and were completely turned off on April 26, 1986 (Chernobyl).

When the IPCC was launched in 1988, the econuts were already almost 100% against nuclear power. The leftist UN / IPCC had no chance to reverse that belief, even if they wanted to. Nuclear power was knocked out of the ring before the first IPCC meeting.

Graham
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 5:00 pm

I am well aware that Greenpeace morphed out of the anti nuclear movement .
I will just ask you some questions .
How will modern civilization cope with intermittent and expensive energy?
How will food be produced to feed 8 billion people without using natural gas to manufacture nitrogenous fertilizer that grows the food that feeds 4 billion people at this present time ?
Why don”t ocean going ships ,that are essential to deliver food and so much other essential cargo around the world convert to nuclear power if CO2 is a real problem .
The answer has to be that the UN has been hijacked by globalists who have other motives and are using Climate Change to change the world .
All countries will be told what they can and cannot do by the Unelected World Government based at the UN.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Graham
November 10, 2022 5:35 am

How about an easier question, such as “What are you having for lunch today?”

I have been anti-CAGW since 1997 and anti-unreliable wind and solar energy sources since that subject became popular.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Graham
November 10, 2022 8:08 am

‘Why don”t ocean going ships, that are essential to deliver food and so much other essential cargo around the world convert to nuclear power if CO2 is a real problem.’

One of the ‘reasons’ behind the US Jones Act is to force ships operating between US ports to employ US crews, as the preference for most ship owners is to staff their vessels with much cheaper crews. I’m sure that most, if not all, of these crews are highly competent, but I could see a lot of ‘progressives’ blowing a gasket at the idea of foreign staffed, nuclear powered, ships bobbing around in US waters.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 9, 2022 2:23 pm

But the IPCC gets partial credit for one thing: They waited from 1988 to 1995 to completely dismiss all natural causes of climate change as “noise”.

After 4.5 billion years of 100% natural climate changes, the IPCC decided they were just noise in 1988, but pretended to be studying the issue until 1995.

The IPCC was set up to predict dangerous climate change and blame humans. So that’s what they do. Every year since 1988. That’s done mainly with scary predictions. They are always wrong predictions, but accuracy is not a goal.

karlomonte
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 13, 2022 7:16 am

This hoop-tee-do about IPCC predictions is classic Stokesian misdirection and obfuscation by he and his disciples. Rant and rave up-and-down about some relatively minor point a skeptic has dared to discuss, while ignoring the entire track record of the IPCC.

walterr070
November 9, 2022 10:57 am

Let’s not forget that a large portion of the global temperature rise is due to El Niño’s. I’m thinking that in the years ahead UAH will divert so far from the other adjusted data sets that it will raise a lot of suspicion. Either Roy is lying or they are lying and given the fact that Roy and John is pretty much retired and have nothing to gain from this, I don’t think reasonable people will have trouble picking sides.

Last edited 2 months ago by walterr070
Richard Greene
Reply to  walterr070
November 9, 2022 2:32 pm

Most likely baloney
The long term (30 to 50 years) effect of ENSOs should be a neutral trend
You can’t look at El Ninos and ignore La Ninas

Duker
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 4:07 pm

Maybe . The normal oscillations between nuetral and El Ninos and La nina should be . But there are extremes of those events on much longer cycles

The data record isnt detailed enough beyond 50 years – when the ENSO phenomenon was proposed. Its been going very much longer than that of course

A_Squared
November 9, 2022 11:09 am

Not so much a comment but a suggestion. Any numbers cited, especially temperature, should include the error. To illustrate what I am getting at, in the conclusions it states “UAH midrange data show the world has warmed at only 0.14 C°/decade.” I have a hard time believing that the accuracy of the temperature gauges used to determine that value were less than plus/minus 0.2°, but I am just guessing here. Regardless, the precision implied by the statement is likely within the margin or error. The same applies to sea level values and other numbers that are presented in the literature, typically to the second decimal place implying an accuracy that likely does not exist. If within the margin of error is there any real change?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  A_Squared
November 9, 2022 1:23 pm

Not to mention that, besides the accuracy of the gauges, there aren’t nearly enough of them across the planet- and nobody really knows what the temperature was across the planet more than a century ago. It’s all wild ass guesswork pretending to be “settled science”.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2022 1:46 pm

With respect to tide gauges (not temperature gauges) there are about 60 with sufficiently long records (>60 years) and close enough to a difGPS correction for vertical land motion to make a useful global record. They show about 2.2mm/yr and no acceleration. See my long ago post ‘Sea level rise, acceleration, and closure’ for details.

Richard Greene
Reply to  A_Squared
November 9, 2022 2:34 pm

THERE ARE LITTLE OR NO RAW DATA in the surface global average temperature statistic.
There are adjusted numbers
Re-adjusted numbers
Infilled numbers
Homogenized numbers
Pasteurized numbers
Blended numbers
Upended numbers
Numbers pulled out of a hat
Almost everything but the raw data from every weather station

Once you adjust raw data, they are no longer data — they are an estimate of what the data would have been if measured correctly in the first place.

How can you possibly know what the margin of error is for that global average temperature statistic?

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 2:50 pm

Almost everything but the raw data from every weather station”

I use the raw data for every weather station (GHCN V4 unadjusted). It makes very little difference. Here is the October calculation. It warmed by 0.094°C from September. GISS will be out in a few days, saying much the same.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 4:33 pm

Nick,
What steps have you taken to verify that the data you use is “unadjusted”?
Geoff S

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 4:51 pm

Geoff,
Plenty. I wrote a WUWT article on how you can track BoM data from where it is posted within six minutes of recording, up to where it ends up in GHCN unadjusted (V3 in that case). I have done that many times. More broadly, you can do that with OGIMET, which records the data verbatim as submitted on CLIMAT forms by the Met Offices.

Going back in time, I recall an occasion when you found some data in an old C’wlth Year Book. I was able to show that the identical data was present in GHCN V3.

The first thing about unadjusted data is that it doesn’t change. GHCN V1, around 1990, was a massive project in which various Universities digitised hand records, and put the results into a repository. This was released on DVD as GHCN V1. You can’t adjust a DVD.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 10, 2022 5:39 am

Allegedly raw data has been found to sometimes already include adjustments, and infilled numbers ARE NEVER DATA.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2022 10:13 am

Monckton used UAH in this article. UAH uses the most aggressive infilling strategy of any dataset that I’m aware of.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bdgwx
November 10, 2022 10:17 am

UAH has infilling only for small areas above both poles. If you believe that UAH has more infilling than surface data, PROVE IT.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2022 10:41 am

UAH’s infilling is most aggressive at the equator where it expands out to 4170 km spatially and 2 days temporally. Compare that with GISTEMP which only expands out to 1200 km spatially and has no temporal infilling. See Spencer & Christy 1992 for details.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Nick Stokes
Reply to  bdgwx
November 10, 2022 2:48 pm

I think the link here should be this Here is a sample:

comment image

That is your raw data

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 10, 2022 7:25 pm

Yes. That is the link!

And for the lurkers at the equator that is 111.3 km/lon * (15 * 2.5) lon = 4174 km.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2022 2:36 pm

infilled numbers ARE NEVER DATA”

Indeed the data is the temperature measured in the immediate environment of some thousands of thermometers around the world, usually in enclosures. But of itself, that data is of no interest. What is of interest is what it tells about the rest of the world. That has to be deduced by some infilling process, given the sample.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 10, 2022 10:46 am

Monckton used adjusted data in his post. Here are all of the version-to-version adjustments UAH made. The list does not include the effect of the adjustments in the original version A adjustments.

Year / Version / Effect / Description / Citation

Adjustment 1: 1992 : A : unknown effect : simple bias correction : Spencer & Christy 1992

Adjustment 2: 1994 : B : -0.03 C/decade : linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 1995

Adjustment 3: 1997 : C : +0.03 C/decade : removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variations : Christy et al. 1998

Adjustment 4: 1998 : D : +0.10 C/decade : orbital decay : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 5: 1998 : D : -0.07 C/decade : removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 6: 2003 : 5.0 : +0.008 C/decade : non-linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 2003

Adjustment 7: 2004 : 5.1 : -0.004 C/decade : data criteria acceptance : Karl et al. 2006 

Adjustment 8: 2005 : 5.2 : +0.035 C/decade : diurnal drift : Spencer et al. 2006

Adjustment 9: 2017 : 6.0 : -0.03 C/decade : new method : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
OweninGA
Reply to  A_Squared
November 9, 2022 3:55 pm

For UAH, the thermometers are microwave emissions of gases in the atmosphere. They publish their +/- values on the trends, but I don’t remember what they are off the top of my head.

Reply to  A_Squared
November 9, 2022 4:32 pm

A-Squared,
Please hammer this point about errors. It is one that I have got bored making over and over for the past decade or more. Geoff S

bdgwx
Reply to  A_Squared
November 10, 2022 10:15 am

Christy et al. 2003 report the uncertainty of the trend at ±0.05 C/decade.

Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 11:15 am

“my earlier article contained an error. I had cited IPCC (1990) as predicting that, 
compared with the then present (i.e., 1990), business-as-usual CO2 emissions would be 
10-20% greater” 

You’re having a lot of trouble getting stuff right. bdgwx and I tried to explain endlessly what the statement about 10-20% rise in emissions really meant, but no, we were climate communists or some such. And here you go again:

comment image

The claimed observed forcing of 1 W/m2 from the NOAA AGGI is wrong. The figure of 1 given here is actually the AGGI index, which is not a forcing, but a unit-less index. The forcing was in fact about 2.1 W/m2 in 1990.

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Nick Stokes
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 12:31 pm

I see that I may have mis-read Lord M’s diagram, in that the stated 1 W/m2 is not the observed forcing as stated, but the difference between forcings 1990 to 2021. So on that basis the Scenario A predicted a higher rise in forcing than what eventuated.

The obvious answer to that is not that IPCC made an error. It is, as bdgwx and I have been contending, that what has unfolded is not scenario A, but rather somewhere much nearer to scenario B or below.

In fact, Scenario B did envisage an increase in radiative forcing of just over 1 W/m². And, sure enough, the predicted temperature rise of that scenario was 0.2°C/decade, very close to what eventuated.

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Nick Stokes
old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 1:30 pm

Nick,

To be strictly accurate, the GHG concentration pathway has more closely followed Scenarios B&C (D doesn’t diverge from C for a few more years)

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. The four scenarios in IPCC (1990) are emissions scensarios, not forcings scenarios. If Mr Stokes were to read IPCC (1990), he would find that from 1990 to 2020 the emissions under Scenario B (Fig. 2.4) and the emissions on the explicit assumption of no annual emissions growth compared with 1990 (Fig. A.15) are identical. In reality, however, emissions from 1990-2020 followed Scenario A, which encompassed 10 BtC annual emissions by 2020, which is what actually occurred.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 2:00 am

 In reality, however, emissions from 1990-2020 followed Scenario A, which encompassed 10 BtC”
To say it is an emissions scenario is semantic; what actually drives the model is the forcing, which is a function of concentration. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because the story for forcings and emissions is much the same. Yes, CO₂ isn’t mow far below Scen A, but other gases are very different, except for N₂O (also Scenario A). Methane is now about half the Scen A value, and below even C, and the CFCs and HCF 22 are way below even D, at about a quarter of the Scen A values.

Forcing is not only the driver for the models, but is the best way to express the combined effects of all the gases. Scenario B is about right.

Here is Table 2.2 of the WGiii, with the current values in red beside the 2025 scenario A values.

comment image

The first 3 values come from the Wiki article on emissions of GHGs; the last 3 come from here

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 12, 2022 3:02 am

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. The forcings are, of course, derived from the predicted emissions and not vice versa. That is not a matter of mere semantics. The 10.1 BtC outturn for CO2 is identical with the WGIII Scenario A value after deducting the land-use element of 1.4 BtC from the WGIII value to make it like for like with the observed outturn. IPCC had mistakenly predicted far greater methane emissions than had eventually occurred, and, in the next four successive reports, would successively reduce it.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 12:39 pm

IPCC had mistakenly predicted far greater methane emissions”

They didn’t predict it. They offered four scenarios; A was the high emissions scenario. It turned out we didn’t go that way.

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 12, 2022 3:13 pm

Methane is now about half the Scen A value, and below even C

I’m probably stomping through a mine field here, but do can somebody suggest why there is a push to further reduce CH4 emissions/concentrations?

Scenario C was effectively “mission accomplished”.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  old cocky
November 12, 2022 3:36 pm

Methane paused for a while after 1990, for unclear reasons. But it’s going up again.

comment image

old cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 12, 2022 3:57 pm

Thanks.

Gee, the more you look at these things, the more questions come up. There have to be a stack of Ph.D. topics just in that graph.

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 3:09 pm

One shouldn’t use W/m2 to rate a prediction. The First Assessment Report assumed a doubling of CO2 amounted to 4.37W/m2, while that NOAA page probably is assuming the modern estimate (3.7 or 3.8 W/m2). One should instead express forcing in terms of doublings of CO2 or F_2x.

This article of mine is a bit outdated, it only has data up to 2016. But I haven’t seen any other article breaking down the differences between the First Assessment Report and “reality” (the latter proxied by the forcing estimate in Lewis & Curry 2018).
https://alberto-zaragoza-comendador.medium.com/why-the-ipccs-first-assessment-report-over-estimated-forcing-since-1990-57aa2584bb1c

When compared with LC18’s unadjusted data, the IPCC’s First Assessment Report over-estimated forcing by 0.568W/m2; expressed as a percentage of F_2x, the difference is 0.094. That is to say: FAR’s Scenario A expected forcing equivalent to 0.094 more doublings of CO2 than LC18 reported. CO2, methane and stratospheric water vapor accounted for 96% of the over-estimate in raw W/m2 and 105% when measured as a share of F_2x.

Stratospheric water vapor is a by-product of methane so the over-estimate in forcing (and I’m talking forcing in terms of doubling of CO2, not in W/m2) is really down to two factors: methane and CO2. For the former, more than the entirety of the over-estimate occurred because the IPCC over-estimated the change in methane concentrations (the concentration increase in the real world was several times smaller than FAR expected).

For CO2, at least up to 2016 real-world emissions were higher than under Scenario A. More than the entirety in the over-estimate of CO2 forcing was due to an over-estimate of the airborne fraction. The IPCC expected 60-65%, whereas in reality it’s been 40-45%.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
November 9, 2022 3:40 pm

“One should instead express forcing in terms of doublings of CO2 or F_2x.”

That was my contention in the previous thread, although you don’t need to use the unit of doublings. And you need to look at all the major gases. The reason, as I explained further down that thread, is that the gas ppm are the data input into the GCM’s, and forcings (and emissions) are usually derived from them as the primary data. As you said, in 1990 they may well have the airborne fraction somewhat wrong. AF needed a good measure of tonnage emissions, which they didn’t then have. But since they work out W/m2 from ppm, and independently via GCM’s work out the future T, it is the ppm of the scenario that counts.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 11, 2022 8:43 am

Exactly. Emission projections helped them craft the scenarios. They likely used carbon models to translate emissions into airborne fractions. But it is the airborne fractions (not emissions) that the temperature predictions are based on.

Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2022 1:16 pm

“just about all energy-intensive manufacture to China with the loss of millions of working-class jobs in the free world”

Now that’s something that really ticks me off. I consider our political leaders who let this happen to be no less than traitors. I grew up in an industrial area which now has no industry other than catering to rich tourists. And of course vastly overpaid, condescending, self-righteous bureaucrats.

John V. Wright
November 9, 2022 1:20 pm

Thank heavens for Christopher Monckton. He is not only entertaining but he is also that other wonderfully annoying thing for manmade global warming ‘belivers’. Accurate.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  John V. Wright
November 9, 2022 1:37 pm

Except for Shakespearian to Colonial English translator required to read his rants….

Chris Hanley
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 9, 2022 3:45 pm

Monckton’s articles read like standard English to me, maybe if he wrote in standard ‘twitterese’ he would be better understood.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
November 11, 2022 12:18 pm

ROFLMAO

observa
November 9, 2022 3:08 pm

This positive feedback loop is also found on glaciers atop mountains, many of which have been frozen since the last ice age. 
https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/melting-greenland-ice-sheet-could-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-by-0-5in/ar-AA13Vxtg

Half an inch!!! Doomed I tell ya! We’re all doomed unless we can hold the fort to the last ice age.

observa
Reply to  observa
November 9, 2022 3:34 pm
bdgwx
November 10, 2022 10:33 am

CMoB said: “However, a commenter on my recent piece about IPCC (1990) kindly directed me to a table in the Working Group III report, showing the Scenario A prediction for global annual CO2 emissions in billions of tons per year from energy and industry, which sum to 10 BtC yr–1:”

You’re statements about the IPCC prediction comes from WGI. It’s been pointed out to you multiple times that WGIII scenarios and WGI scenarios are different.

CMoB said: “The above table gives the actual prediction in IPCC (1990) of 10 bn tons a year of business-as-usual emissions from energy and industry in 2025.”

That’s for WGIII-A scenario. The WGI-A scenario is about 11.5 GtC/yr.

CMoB said: “anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1990 has risen at little more than half the business-as-usual rate originally predicted by IPCC (1990)”

That is because GHG concentrations are significantly lower than WGI-A.

CMoB said: ” IPCC’s then outlandish predictions were even further in excess of mere observed reality than had been realized”

No they aren’t. Your misrepresentation now is even further in excess of your previous misrepresentations.

Again…the WGI temperature predictions are for scenarios A, B, C, and D. Each prediction is based on the abundance of GHGs in the atmosphere. The abundance of GHGs are used as inputs for the box-diffusion ocean/atmosphere coupled model making the predictions. Those abundances are described in figure 5 of the SPM. And as you can clearly see the actual abundances of CO2, CH4, and CFC11 are less than the scenario A inputs. The scenario inputs that best match the real GHG abundances is probably scenario C. You can call me as many names as you want. It does not grant you justification to misrepresent the IPCC. You can be critical of the IPCC; just make sure you are criticizing things they actually said.

Mark BLR
Reply to  bdgwx
November 11, 2022 5:17 am

That’s for WGIII-A scenario. The WGI-A scenario is about 11.5 GtC/yr.

As best I can figure it those are the “Total CO2 emissions” projections for the future.

From the ATL article :

The above table gives the actual prediction in IPCC (1990) of 10 bn tons a year of business-as-usual emissions from energy and industry in 2025.

Page 122 of the WG-III report is the start of “Appendix 4.2, Low and High base case carbon emissions projections on a country-by-country basis for deforestation of all tropical forest for 1980-2050 (in Billion Tonnes of Carbon per Year)”.

This week — as a direct result of trying to figure out CMoB’s original “+20-30% since 1990” claims — I discovered Table 1 in the SPM of the WG-III FAR report (copied below), which actually gives summary numbers different from the “Tropical Total” numbers in Appendix 4.2.

The numbers for the “BaU” case, in the two right-hand columns, for “Energy” and “Cement [/ Industry ]” are those given in the table in the ATL article (except for a “1985” instead of “1990” in the column headers).

11.5 GtC “Total CO2 emissions” – 1.4 GtC “Deforestation” [ i.e. “LULUCF” or “AFOLU” ? ]
= 10.1 GtC (per year) … which “we” would probably (?) now label as “CO2 emissions (FF&I)”.

FAR_WG-III_SPM-Table-1.png
Last edited 2 months ago by Mark BLR
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 11, 2022 12:21 pm

bdgwx is, as usual, wrong, and Mark BLR is right. IPCC’s four scenarios are emissions scenarios, not forcings scenarios. IPCC had made the elementary error of incorrectly converting its predicted emissions into forcings, as the head posting explains. Accordingly, it is by the business-as-usual Scenario A that IPCC should be judged and found wanting.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 11, 2022 7:59 pm

I never said they weren’t emission scenarios. What I’m saying is that WGIII and WGI scenarios are different. The WGIII scenarios are called policy scenarios whereas WGI scenarios are called science scenarios. You’re claims about the temperature predictions were taken from WGI science scenario A. The temperature predictions are based on the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2; not emissions. So while emissions are used to construct the scenarios it is actually the airborne fractions that are used to make the predictions. Nevermind that temperature predictions of all scenarios whether from WGI or WGIII also consider CH4, CFC11, etc. which account for 45% of the forcing that you don’t even mention.

Figure 5 of the SPM documents the airborne fractions of the 3 most significant GHGs. At 2020 WGI-A is at 440 ppm for CO2, 2500 ppb for CH4, and 325 ppt of CFC11. Do you really think that’s representative of the actual airborne fractions of those GHGs?

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  bdgwx
November 12, 2022 2:56 am

bdgwx makes my point for me. IPCC had incorrectly converted the emissions it predicted, so as greatly to exaggerate the expected forcings. Both the WGI and WGIII are emissions scenarios. And it is abundantly clear from an overlay of the graphs of scenario B forcings on p. 56 and of forcings on the assumption of no growth in emissions since 1990 on p. 338, which, when overlaid, are near-coincident for 1990-2020, that scenario A, not scenario B is the relevant scenario, whether one uses WGI or WGIII.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 8:28 am

CMoB said: “bdgwx makes my point for me.”

Your points were that actual emissions exceeded scenario A and that the IPCC predicted a warming rate far higher than observed. Neither is true.

CMoB said: “And it is abundantly clear from an overlay of the graphs of scenario B forcings on p. 56 and of forcings on the assumption of no growth in emissions since 1990 on p. 338, which, when overlaid, are near-coincident for 1990-2020, that scenario A, not scenario B is the relevant scenario, whether one uses WGI or WGIII.”

Scenario A has a forcing of 4.5 W/m2 and far higher than the actual 3.2 W/m2 of forcing. That is an actual increase of about 1.0 W/m2 as opposed to the scenario A increase of 2.3 W/m2 since 1990. The temperature predictions are based on the forcings (or airborne fractions) of the GHGs. The scenario A inputs into the temperature prediction model was over 2x higher than the inputs that actually occurred.

The issue here is not one of bad temperature predictions, but of constructing scenarios that do not exactly match emission changes. That is something both Nick and I already mentioned. That is, the IPCC’s understanding of the relationship between forcings (or airborne fractions) of GHGs and emissions caused them to overestimate the forcings (or airborne fractions) of GHGs. That does not change the fact that the temperature predictions are based on forcings (or airborne fractions) of GHGs; not emissions. In other words, the models used to predict temperature were close whereas the models used to predict concentrations were subpar. If you want to be critical of the IPCC then be critical of the fact that they’re understanding of how CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc. accumulate in the atmosphere.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  bdgwx
November 12, 2022 8:57 am

Don’t wriggle. The four scenarios in AR1 are emissions scenarios. As has been carefully explained in the head posting, from 1990-2020 scenario B matched the unrealistic “no-increase-in-emissions-compared-with-1990” metric in AR1. Scenario A, however, correctly envisioned the increase in emissions that actually occurred. Yet Scenario A predicted far more warming than was observed. The reason was that IPCC imagined that there would be far more radiative forcing per unit of emissions than is at all realistic, and then converted that excessive forcing to temperature change. It is, therefore, scenario A by which IPCC should be judged, and it is evident that IPCC predicted far more warming under that scenario than has occurred.

old cocky
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 3:05 pm

Gents, you seem to be arguing at cross-purposes again rather than reaching common ground.

At the risk of everybody flaming me, it does appear that at least CO2 emissions were a little below Scenario A, but that concentrations more closely matched Scenario B.
The other GHG concentrations also seem to have approximated Scenario B (or D for CFCs). Emissions seem to be far more difficult to evaluate. so there’s not a lot of benefit to be gained here from arguing the toss about them.

The discussion then centres around how well the IPCC TCS estimates match observations.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 12, 2022 5:31 pm

Scenario A predicts more warming because the airborne fraction of GHGs is higher than what actually occurred.

Scenario A does not correct envision emissions. All emissions except N2O were less than the scenario. CO2 was only slightly less. CH4 and CFCs were significantly less.

Mark BLR
Reply to  bdgwx
November 14, 2022 5:46 am

Your points were that actual emissions exceeded scenario A and that … Neither is true.

With the pointers to the FAR WG-III report, especially Chapter 2 “Emissions Scenario[s]”, gleaned from these posts over the last 2 or 3 weeks I have finally managed to collate a set of quantitative datasets for the IPCC’s “projections” since 1990.

As the vast majority of media headlines on “GHG emission” or “carbon[-dioxide] emissions” turn out to be diatribes against the evil of “anthropogenic Fossil-Fuel and Industry [ FF&I ] CO2 emissions” I finally updated my (early-2019 era) spreadsheet with both FAR and AR6 “FF&I” numbers.

Enjoy.

– – – – –

FAR (Scenarii “A / BaU”, B, C and D) numbers from WG-III chapter 2, “Emissions Scenario”, Table 2.8 (pages 26 to 29).

URL : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg3/

NB : I used the “Commercial Energy + Cement” sums for each year column in the “CO2 (Petagrams C/Yr)” block as proxies for “FF&I” emissions.

– – – – –

SAR (IS92) numbers from the NASA SEDAC dataset, hosted at Columbia University’s CIESIN.

URL : https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/ipcc-is92-emissions-scenarios-v1-1

As they put it in the Abstract under the “Set Overview” tab :

The data set was originally produced by IPCC in 1992, and the digital version was re-edited in 2005 to resolve the discrepancies among versions of the data over years.

NB (1) : You’ll need to register (with NASA) for an “Earthdata login” to download the Excel file.

NB (2) : I used the differences between the (Total) “CO2” and “CO2 from Deforestation” rows as a proxy for “CO2 (FF&I)” emissions.

– – – – –

TAR + AR4 (CMIP3 / SRES) numbers from the TAR’s Appendix II, Table II.1.1.

URL : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/

– – – – –

AR5 (CMIP5 / RCP) numbers from Annex II, Table AII.2.1a.

URL : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

– – – – –

AR6 (CMIP6 / SSP) numbers from the IIASA website.

URL : https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome

Click on the “login as guest” button, then on the “IAM Scenarios” tab.

In the “(2.) Model/Scenarios:” box ensure that only the scenario(s) you want to focus on are selected.
NB : In my case I chose SSP1-2.6 and SSP1-1.9, SSP2-4.5, “SSP3-Baseline” (= SSP3-7.0), SSP4-6.0 and SSP4-3.4, and “SSP5-Baseline” (= SSP5-8.5).

In the “(3.) Variable” box choose the “Emissions (harmonized) … CO2 … [ Total / ] Fossil Fuels and Industry” option.
NB : See also “Emissions (harmonized) … CH4 … [ Total / ] Fossil Fuels and Industry”, “Emissions (harmonized) … N2O”, “Climate … Concentration … [ GHG ]” and “Climate … Forcing … [ Total / GHG ]”.

Select then “Copy / Paste” the resulting data from the “Query Results:” box to your favourite text editor, then save it in a format your local spreadsheet (/ statistical analysis) program can cope with (e.g. after doing a “Search and Replace” of all “Space + Tab” character sequences to just “Tab” instead).

AR1-6_FFI-CO2-emissions_1.png
old cocky
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 14, 2022 12:37 pm

That warrants an article in its own right.

Mark BLR
Reply to  old cocky
November 19, 2022 3:24 am

That warrants an article in its own right.

It would need a lot of “cleaning up” to be worthy of an article !

I’m still at the “throw everything at the wall (or into a spreadsheet …) and see what sticks” stage.

In the “GHG emission –> atmospheric concentrations –> increased radiative forcing –> higher GMST (eventually)” cycle both “bdgwx” and CMoB have jumped ahead to the GMST numbers.

I’m still stuck at the “GtC –> ppm” stage, and how “well” (/ badly) the IPCC projections back in 1990 turned out.

NB : Under the “CMIP6 Emissions” tab on the IIASA website there is an additional “History” option at the bottom of the “Model/Scenarios” box.
Choosing “Variable = CMIP6 Emissions … CO2 … Total” with this option ticked adds a “History – van Marle et al. (2017) & Hoesly et al. (2018)” line to the “Query Results” outputs, with “Total CO2 emissions as determined by the IPCC” data from 1990 to 2015.

FAR_BaU-vs-reality_1.png
old cocky
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 11, 2022 7:10 pm

That’s a very useful table. Thanks for tracking it down and posting it.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights