Posted on 05/02/2012 12:23:46 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Have the 1990 IPCC predictions been proved completely, unarguably and utterly wrong? Yes.
They predicted that if our emissions stayed the same, temperatures would rise by 0.3 C per decade, and would be at the very least 0.2, and the most 0.5. Even by the most generous rehash of the data, the highest rate they can find is 0.18 C per decade which is likely an overestimate, and in any case, is below the very least estimate, despite the worlds emissions of CO2 continuing ever higher.
Climate Scientist Matthew England called that very accurate. Since when did 0.18 = 0.3? (Shall we call it climate maths, or just call it wrong?) The IPCC had a whole barn wall to aim at, and a battalion of government funded gold plated AK-47s to hit the target, but they still missed.
Both England and the ABC owe Minchin an apology.
The un-Skepticalscience page uses a pea and thimble trick to argue the IPCC 1990 predictions were right (Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR). As usual John Cooks site looks technical but uses complexity to hide the way they redefined the prediction in order to pretend it wasnt wrong. Excuses excuses. Intellectual wordsmiths who bore you to death.
The un-Skepticalscience page essentially says that GHG forcing was lower than the IPCC predicted. So if you allow for the fact that the IPCC got the future concentration of CO2 wrong, then, hey, really their models are very accurate. Figure that estimating the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is far simpler chemistry and much less complex than getting the whole kit and caboodle of a climate model to work. If the IPCC dont even know how big the sinks and sources of CO2 are, why would anyone trust them to get a multivariate equation with clouds, rain and ocean-turnover right?
1/ There is no direct quote of the IPCC prediction.
2/ The IPCC used the term prediction but unskeptical science repeatedly used the term projection. They even retitle graphs.
3/ They didnt use the original captions on the graphs, instead writing their own.
4/ The IPCC talked of emissions leading to a temperature rise. Skeptical Science talks of radiative forcing. (A clue, emissions are measured in gigatons, not in W/m2. The SkS page is discussing something other than the main point.)
But if you were a casual reader you wouldnt know that unless you bothered to be skeptical, and go to the source to check.
If emissions follow a Business-as-usual pattern
Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C 0.5C) [IPCC FAR summary]
Note the wording is a prediction about emissions leading to warming. Radiative forcings are a subpart of the big picture, but Business As Usual means emissions as usual (and for 1990), not final CO2 ppm values as usual or radiative forcings as usual. We judge the prediction by the terms they set, not post hoc ignoring the parts that fail, cherry picking something they accidentally may have got right, and then calling it all very accurate. Its not even a tiny bit accurate. The world has been warming for 300 years, so to say it will keep warming is the most obvious forecast, and thats what happened. The favourite horse won.
The IPCC actually thought that sticking with 100% of 1990 emissions would lead to 390ppm Co2 or so by 2012. But our emissions were 25% higher by 2012, so youd think atmospheric CO2 would be higher too. But no, in the end result was accidentally, 390ppm. See Fig 4 FAR summary page xvii.
We emitted more than 1990 levels as usual (see here or here). You can get the idea from this graph. That should have given the IPCC a bit of a booster pushing the global temps up just that much higher.
Man made emissions of CO2 have increased since 1990 by 25%.
Data Source for the emissions graph: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Heres the original IPCC prediction graph from the 1990 report with the original caption.
The caption on Fig 8. IPCC FAR Summary makes it clear that the realized temperature is a prediction caused by Business-as-usual emissions.
Pretending that we can still call it accurate because the IPCC overestimated how much the human emissions of CO2 would push up atmospheric levels (by underestimating global sinks) is just shifting their error.
In 1990 any halfwit could have drawn a straight line on a graph with a ruler through the last 100 years and come up with a prediction the Earth would warm by about 0.15c per decade . Theyd have been more accurate than the multibillion dollar IPCC fan club, and a lot cheaper.
The models are not just a waste of money, theyre worse, because their inaccurate results are used to suck more public money into malinvestments and misconceived ideas.
The site may look superficially convincing but despite the effort to list references, they dont quote accurately, dont use the original headers or captions, change the words used by the IPCC, cherry pick one part of the prediction, ignore the parts that fail, and links to science articles that are essentially irrelevant. Streuth, even the name of the site is misleading.
The excuse will still come that methane did not rise as fast as predicted, which it didnt, but its just another excuse. The IPCC dont understand what drives atmospheric levels of CO2 or methane either, two accidents dont make it accurate. And if they cant do the basic factors there is no chance they can predict the more complex variable called temperature. [Click here for levels of methane, CFC's and N2O from Cape Grim]. Methane has leveled off, but conversely the accidental production of HFC-23, a greenhouse gas 11,000 times more potent than CO2, rose by 50% at the same time. The increase was so large, it offset any equivalent CO2 reductions in the whole UNFCCC Clean Development mechanism in 2007 and 2008. (see Montzka, 2008)
Its bizarre in a way that alarmists try to defend the IPCC in 1990 or Hansen in 1988. You would think they would wear the obvious and say models are so much better now. Instead, its telling that they think they can get away with audacious spin to say black is white, and 1.8 equals 3.
PS: There is no chance the government will pay someone to audit, check or expose the mistakes and omissions on sites that un-skeptically support big-government policies. If you think its useful to have more articles like the one above, perhaps you can toss a few cents in the tip jar? Every donation helps. Thanks, Jo.
REFERENCE
Montzka, S. A., L. Kuijpers, M. O. Battle, M. Aydin, K. R. Verhulst, E. S. Saltzman, and D. W. Fahey (2010), Recent increases in global HFC-23 emissions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L02808, doi:10.1029/2009GL041195.[abstract]
***********************
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Heres how you can spot the pea-and-thimble trick in the un-SkepticalScience site:
1/ There is no direct quote of the IPCC prediction.
2/ The IPCC used the term prediction but unskeptical science repeatedly used the term projection. They even retitle graphs.
3/ They didnt use the original captions on the graphs, instead writing their own.
4/ The IPCC talked of emissions leading to a temperature rise. Skeptical Science talks of radiative forcing. (A clue, emissions are measured in gigatons, not in W/m2. The SkS page is discussing something other than the main point.)
Those aren't innocent mistakes that is intentional fraud.
Mans effect on the climate are puny.
And there is a purpose behind the fraud.....but you knew that already.
Thaks for adding your comment.
Let us hope the scientist, engineers in Iran working on their atomic bombs will be of the same quality. Perhaps they will blow themselves up and Israel and the US will not have to fly one aircraft over their airspace.
Thanks for your efforts to educate people on this subject.
And God bless the courageous scientists who have spoken out in the face of the AGW juggernaut, which seems, thankfully, to have spent itself now.
But Mann's effect on producing junk science has been significant. ;~))
Global Warming on Free Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.