Surrender: New Paper Admits "Pause" Unpredicted by Models

Threegoofs said:

Again..Professor Goddard can't repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And I don't think he believes he can either...it's just you not understanding the concept.

And my points on the paper (1998 starting point, short runs tend to not achieve significance) stand.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

And yet:

As Fig. 6 shows, even after all the tampering, the mean warming rate among two terrestrial and two satellite datasets continues to be somewhat below IPCC’s least medium-term prediction made in 1990. Yet IPCC, though in its Fifth Assessment Report it has near-halved those medium-term predictions, has unaccountably left its longer-term predictions unaltered: for otherwise it would be apparent to all that the real-world temperature data are turning the climate scare into a non-event.

Figure 6. Mean of the NCEI, HadCRUT4, RSS and UAH datasets, 1990-2016,
vs. IPCC medium-term warming predictions in 1990.

Click to expand...

Figure 6.11: The contribution of the change in greenhouse gas concentrations to the change in global-mean surface air temperature (°C) during 1875 to 1985 together with projections from 1985 to 2100 for IPCC Scenarios BaU-D The temperature rise is from 1765 (pre-industrial). The simulation was performed with an energy balance climate/upwelling diffusion ocean model with an upwelling velocity w of 4 m y-1 mixed layer depth h of 70 m vertical diffusivity k of 0.66 cm2s1 and a π parameter of 1. The three diagrams are for ΔT2x-values of (a) 4.5C (b) 2.5C and (c) 1.5C. The equilibrium temperature is also shown for the BaU emissions and 2.5C climate sensitivity.​

Mithrae said:

Continuing accusations of "manipulation" and "tampering" against the scientists producing half a dozen surface temperature records and several tropospheric records just continues to confirm that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Your further accusations against the IPCC are likewise demonstrably false. The 1990 report's middle of the range projection given a 2.5 degree climate sensitivity was for around 0.5 degrees' warming contribution from greenhouse gases by 2016, not 0.75 degrees' temperature change; cooling effects such as anthropogenic aerosols would then result in a smaller figure for actual observed temperature change (some 15-25% lower based on the ratios of GHG to total anthropogenic forcing given in AR5). Since the actual observed warming has been around 0.45 degrees, observations as of 2016 have been above the 1990 mid-range projection for a 2.5 degree sensitivity (0.45/0.85 = 0.53), even before considering the possibility that the warming may have been even further offset by natural cooling for most of that period (ie, since 1998 supposedly).


When you are constantly throwing around words like manipulation and tampering in accusations against climate scientists, it then looks doubly suspicious when we see that you yourself are not using the actual graphic from the IPCC report. To help you out, reproduced below is Figure 6.11b from the IPCC's First Assessment Report, clearly showing a mid-range estimate of about 0.45 degrees' contribution from greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2013. It seems that your source has done some tampering themselves to somehow come up with their claim of 0.75 degree projected temperature change :roll:

View attachment 67219816
Figure 6.11: The contribution of the change in greenhouse gas concentrations to the change in global-mean surface air temperature (°C) during 1875 to 1985 together with projections from 1985 to 2100 for IPCC Scenarios BaU-D The temperature rise is from 1765 (pre-industrial). The simulation was performed with an energy balance climate/upwelling diffusion ocean model with an upwelling velocity w of 4 m y-1 mixed layer depth h of 70 m vertical diffusivity k of 0.66 cm2s1 and a π parameter of 1. The three diagrams are for ΔT2x-values of (a) 4.5C (b) 2.5C and (c) 1.5C. The equilibrium temperature is also shown for the BaU emissions and 2.5C climate sensitivity.​

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

I always find it amusing when the deniers say the data is unreliable, yet champion studies using that exact same data when it supports their pet ideas.

Yet they never seem to grasp their intellectual inconsistency....

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The abject failure of official global-warming predictions | Watts Up With ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictio...


Jan 13, 2016 - Guest essay by Monckton of Brenchley The IPCC published its First Assessment Report a quarter of a century ago, in 1990. The Second ...


The zones colored orange and red, bounded by the two red needles, are, respectively, the low-end and high-end medium-term predictions made by the IPCC in 1990 that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº in the 36 years to 2025, equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] Cº/century (page xxiv). The boundary between the two zones is the IPCC’s then best prediction: warming equivalent to about 2.8 C°/century by now. . . .

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

LOL. Thanks for supporting my theory.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

What are being discussed are IPCC temperature projections not data. Even after the temperature record has been "adjusted" the projections are significantly off the mark. So your theory is quite beside the point.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Right.

1. This data is completely false- it's manipulated and all made up to show its warming!

2. Watch me present an analysis of this data that shows there's no warming!

You can't believe 1 and 2 simultaneously.

I guess that's why you make separate threads for each!

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

There is no claim of "made up" data. As I said, you're beside the point.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Right.

That's in the other threads.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

What are being discussed are IPCC temperature projections not data.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

You are not presenting IPPC temperature projections: I already showed you in post #127 that Monckton has tampered with the information, but (apparently lacking any coherent response) all you've done is post yet more of his propaganda bull****.

And once again, this is easily demonstrated. This time at least, Monckton very vaguely referred his readers to the Summary for Policymakers of the 1990 report ("page xxiv"); the SPM states in its executive summary that "Global - mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last 100 years" (page xii). That figure is consistent with modern estimates - HadCRUT4 would suggest a figure around 0.5 degrees warming from 1890 to 1990, and about the same amount going back to 1850.

Does his Lordship believe that there was a lot more warming than that?

If not, then we can easily see (as I already pointed out in post #127) that the projections which Monckton is abusing are for the GHG contribution to warming; the FAR's best estimate was that they had contributed 0.8 degrees towards warming between 1850 and 1990 (IPCC FAR SPM Figure 8, below). So the ratio of actual observed warming (0.5 degrees) to estimated GHG contribution (0.8 degrees) was around 63% according to the First Assessment Report. Their best estimate of GHG contribution to warming by 2025 was another 0.8 degrees, therefore implying around 0.5 degrees actual observed warming in those 36 years.

That's a 1.39 degree per century mid-term best estimate of actual observed warming, based on the 1990 report's ratio of historical GHG contribution to observed warming. As his Lordship has kindly pointed out for us, as of 2015 actual observed surface temperature increases over the period had been around 1.56 to 1.7 degrees per century, well above the inferred 1990 best estimate projection for a Business as Usual scenario. Using the 75-85% ratio I suggested in post #127 - based solely on anthropogenic forcing ratios from AR5 - the expected observed warming should have been 1.67 to 1.89 degrees per century, which again is entirely consistent with observations allowing for the natural cooling variability of the 'hiatus' which dominated that period.

View attachment 67219830

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Monckton cites page xxiv of the 1990 SPM. Please note that nowhere does Monckton confine himself to a calculated GHG contribution. Here is the IPCC quote.

The numbers given below are based on high resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate ofglobal mean warming of 1.8°C by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, thenumbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate.Precipitation estimates are also scaled in a similar way.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Despite his sloppy referencing, those are clearly not the figures his Lordship used: He specifically stated that he was basing his claims on IPCC projections to 2025, not those figures for 2030. Furthermore those 2030 figures would yield lower and upper bounds of 3.1 to 6.6 degrees per century (1.8*0.7/41*100 and 1.8*1.5/41*100, respectively), not the 2.0 to 4.2 degrees per century shown in the graphic you posted, further proving that they aren't the figures Monckton used.


There apparently is an error by the IPCC in that box, since both of the graphs I've shown (Figures 6.11 and SPM 8) have GHG contribution projections which are far lower (0.5 degrees by 2013 and 0.8 degrees by 2025, respectively) and irreconcilable with that 1.8 degrees by 2030. Most likely, the authors of that box confused hypothetical simulations of steadily-increasing greenhouse gases from an historical baseline with actual projections of what's likely to happen. If you check FAR's Figure 6.5a you'll see that its simulated temperature values for central North America, southern Europe etc. are consistent with the regional values provided in that box you've cited. However that is not a projection for temperature change in a given year, simply the scenario results in the 60th to 80th year of the experiment. It's from Manabe et al 1990, building on similar work by Stouffer et al 1989, which we've encountered in this forum before:


So best guess on the reason for the discrepancy between that box and the actual projections for future BaU contributions from greenhouse gases is that the box's authors simply confused the two different types of scenarios.

However while the temperature increases we have since observed have been consistent with the actual FAR projections of GHG contributions to warming, none of these numbers is consistent with Christopher Monckton's claims: By all appearances he has simply made up what he wants others to believe, fully knowing that few if any of his contrarian devotees will bother checking the claims before believing and propagating them.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Your constant insertion of a calculated GHG contribution number is a deflection. The GHG contribution is irrelevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Despite his sloppy referencing, those are clearly not the figures his Lordship used: He specifically stated that he was basing his claims on IPCC projections to 2025, not those figures for 2030. Furthermore those 2030 figures would yield lower and upper bounds of 3.1 to 6.6 degrees per century (1.8*0.7/41*100 and 1.8*1.5/41*100, respectively), not the 2.0 to 4.2 degrees per century shown in the graphic you posted, further proving that they aren't the figures Monckton used.


There apparently is an error by the IPCC in that box, since both of the graphs I've shown (Figures 6.11 and SPM 8) have GHG contribution projections which are far lower (0.5 degrees by 2013 and 0.8 degrees by 2025, respectively) and irreconcilable with that 1.8 degrees by 2030. Most likely, the authors of that box confused hypothetical simulations of steadily-increasing greenhouse gases from an historical baseline with actual projections of what's likely to happen. If you check FAR's Figure 6.5a you'll see that its simulated temperature values for central North America, southern Europe etc. are consistent with the regional values provided in that box you've cited. However that is not a projection for temperature change in a given year, simply the scenario results in the 60th to 80th year of the experiment. It's from Manabe et al 1990, building on similar work by Stouffer et al 1989, which we've encountered in this forum before:


So best guess on the reason for the discrepancy between that box and the actual projections for future BaU contributions from greenhouse gases is that the box's authors simply confused the two different types of scenarios.

However while the temperature increases we have since observed have been consistent with the actual FAR projections of GHG contributions to warming, none of these numbers is consistent with Christopher Monckton's claims: By all appearances he has simply made up what he wants others to believe, fully knowing that few if any of his contrarian devotees will bother checking the claims before believing and propagating them.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The site's propaganda blather notwithstanding, I thank them for a clear exposition of Monckton's methodology.

Monckton calculates his "predicted temperatures" using an equation found in the IPCC report (Working Group 3, Chapter 3) that is used to examine the long-term temperature response to carbon dioxide emissions: Teq = ECS × ln(CO2end / CO2start) / ln(2). This is essentially a ratio increase in CO2 multiplied by the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), a value that represents how sensitive temperature is to changes in CO2. The IPCC gives the range for ECS of 2.0 to 4.5, with a "best estimate" of 3.0.
With this equation, Monckton uses the CO2 values from the IPCC’s A2 scenario: a CO2startvalue of 368 ppm in 2000 and a CO2end value of 836 ppm in 2100. He then examines the IPCC’s low- and high-end ECS values (2.0 and 4.5), but uses the "central estimate" of ECS= 3.25 instead of the IPCC’s "best estimate". Monckton has simplified the original equation by dividing ECS by ln(2) in order to provide a single multiplier. Here are the equations that produce the range of warming that Lord Monkton claims is predicted by the IPCC:

2.9 × ln(836/368) = 2.4 C
4.7 × ln(836/368) = 3.9 C
6.5 × ln(836/368) = 5.3 C​

You can see that these values match up with the "IPCC predicts warming" values shown on Monckton’s figures.

Monckton misuses IPCC equation - Skeptical Science

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming-advanced.htm
Lord Monckton has taken a single equation from the IPCC, used it in an ... temperatures" using an equation found in the IPCC report (Working Group 3, ..... The model projections used in the 1990 IPCC report do not all agree exactly on the ...

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

That is about an entirely different image by Monckton, in which he is misrepresenting the AR4 (2007) report, not the FAR (1990) report. Never mind the actual science, it is really quite amazing that you are so utterly clueless even about the stuff which you're C&Ping. Or perhaps you're not clueless - perhaps you realise that Monckton's claims about the FAR are irredeemably incorrect, so you're trying to divert attention from it? Either way, kudos to you for linking to a clear exposition of his Lordship's duplicity, I guess. While it's a different image misrepresenting a different IPCC report, all other aspects of the story are familiar: Rather than using actual figures from the IPCC reports, Monckton creates his own images asserting whatever it is he wants his dupes to believe.

Again, looking at the actual IPCC figures it's obvious that temperature trends are well within the projection ranges, even as of 2010 or 2012 or 2014, but especially since the most recent El Nino has helped offset the natural cooling variability evident in the 'hiatus' period. You can twist and squirm and copy and paste all the fiction stories and pretty pictures you want, but none of that will change the simple facts of the matter - all it shows is your growing desperation to avoid reality at all costs.
View attachment 67219859

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

In the spirit of blind cutting and pasting....


"The climate models themselves are still quite accurate, and paint a frightening picture of where we’re headed if we follow the status quo scenario of burning lots of fossil fuels. But if we can reduce human carbon pollution, we’ll shift to a scenario with a long-term global warming slowdown."

Click to expand...

1. Errors in external forcing data (Santer et al’s preferred explanation)
2. Internal variability (which has been supported by numerous previous studies, including posts at CE)
3. Values of CO2 climate sensitivity that are too high (interesting new post on this over at ClimateAudit)
4. Missing physical processes in the climate models (e.g. solar indirect effects).

Threegoofs said:

In the spirit of blind cutting and pasting....

Climate scientists just debunked deniers' favorite argument | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian


"The climate models themselves are still quite accurate, and paint a frightening picture of where we’re headed if we follow the status quo scenario of burning lots of fossil fuels. But if we can reduce human carbon pollution, we’ll shift to a scenario with a long-term global warming slowdown."

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Despite his sloppy referencing, those are clearly not the figures his Lordship used: He specifically stated that he was basing his claims on IPCC projections to 2025, not those figures for 2030.

Click to expand...