Bishop Hill The Fifth's first fiddle
Oct 1, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: Models Climate: Surface The full text of the Fifth Assessment Report has been out for less than 24 hours and the tales of malfeasance are flowing already. Steve McIntyre has already blogged about some misleading behaviour by senior scientists involved in the review, but his post this morning is amazing, revealing how the discrepancy between climate models and observations was systematically hidden between the final review of the draft and the report issued to the public.
For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.
None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.
Reader Comments (99)
Dodgy Geeze far to late for that , Like the RS and much of the scientific establishment their sins of omission are want means they have no choice but to keep their mouths shut and hope no one remembers how they played 'the three wise monkeys ' when all the BS was being spouted .
We may spend many years picking up the pieces after 'the cause ' falls
The anger being expressed on a number of sceptical blogs is quite palpable. I do believe that the latest IPCC report may be the last straw for a number of people. I hope these will include climate scientists who have had enough of this disgraceful distortion of science.
One thing that puzzled me in the Abraham & Nuccitelli article was: “…50 percent more slowly…”
It is a bit like, “costs 3 times less…” In other words, it makes no sense whatsoever – 3 times what less? Surely, it should be “one third the cost”? Perhaps Abraham & Nuccitelli mean, “…at 50% the rate…”?
If this is how they mangle the language with which they wish to communicate their science, it makes one wonder if they are also mangling the science in a similar fashion. Unless the lack of clarity in their message is indicative of their lack of understanding.
Diogenes wrote: "Playing with the starting value only determines whether the models and observations will appear to agree best in the early, middle or late portion of the graph. It doesn’t affect the discrepancy of trends, which is the main issue here."
The focus on trends as anomalies also helps mask further discrepancies ie mean earth temperature vs mean model temperature. Last time I saw such a comparison on Lucia's, most models ran a few degrees C warmer than the real thing. This matter seems to be ignored by everyone and the reason this seems to be viewed as unimportant vs anomalies and trends eludes me.
If the model doesn't run at the same temperature, what knockon effects does this have for hydrosphere calculations, for example? Wouldn't starting at a higher baseline temperature of earth automatically mean that estimated water vapour feedbacks would be higher than actual, likewise things like estimated ice melt would be larger and coverage smaller?
the S cat
does your educated opinion override the bedtime chat of Sam Cam? Until a windmill slices through a Cameron household, the windmills will get built. However, maybe the clan feels thaqt this is the time for revenge for 1745....the Camerons were on the Young Pretender's side...
Dave
just remember, the temp trends are still flatlining while the projections are rising. the latest obfuscation just makes it a tiny weeny bit less mobvious that the models are wrong. is it worth getting excited about?
Hide the Decline.
Hide the Hiatus.
Hide the Truth.
Who would believe anything the IPCC or any of the scientists associated with it? They are incapable of honesty, up to their eyeballs in planned deception and completely untrustworthy.
Fire.
Them.
All.
No more gravy train, no more fat salaries, paid travel around the world or cushy undeserved pensions.
Cheshirered is the only one making sense here folks this has got to go to the courts
When the Bish gives an instruction then I feel bound to follow it but in this case I need an explanation please? People are angry and I am constantly told that anger is counterproductive. Anger is a cause of action and in this situation some kind of action is badly needed. The Bish intervened after quite a few people had used the word "liar" and I do understand that reckless accusations on BH have implications for AM. However I am an outspoken person and I do not believe in the politically correct method of pussy footing around an issue so as to avoid distressing the perpetrator.
What exactly should we be calling blatant liars if that is what they are and we can prove it?
@ Oct 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM & Oct 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM | Eye Spy Massive Fraud
That's right my diligent friend.
Mssrs. Jim Skea and John Krebs, are under the microscope, I assure you.
The trail of devastation and contorted decision making in the UK Climate Change Committee seems inexplicable unless there is Deliberate Fraud going on. Reports have been sent to AF, SOCA and COLP et al about those two. We shall see what transpires about that. Mr. Eye Spy is right to name those alleged miscreants, because somebody has been diverting and distorting science, and if Jim Skea is responsible as "Ultimate Arbiter" of UK science funding, and John Krebs is responsible as his principle advisor, then we need to know these things. Please do not claim that it is "OTT" to name names, as Mr. Eye Spy did.
The Fraud Advisory Panel is a genuine and trustworthy organisation, which exists to assist ordinary people in reporting criminal acts, which affect ordinary people's lives, and could divert resources from genuine scientific endeavour, in the case of Members of the UK Climate Change Committee, such as Jim Skea and John Krebs.
I think that Eye Spy Massive Fraud and Jules Maigret need to show us some credentials or get off this blog.
Will everybody calm down?
Andrew, I am calmer than you, dude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5VT-ofxdh4
I've already posted this at Climate Audit, but it's probably useful to repeat it here. There's two points to make:
1. The final AR5 figure presents both model projections and observations as changes relative to a common baseline of 1961-1990, just as was done in AR4 - see here. The SOD graph, for some odd reason, used a baseline of 1990 for the models and 1961-1990 for the observations. That doesn't make any sense, which is presumably why they corrected it for the final draft.
Incidentally, Steve McIntyre himself chose to plot a model against observations in terms of changes relative to a common baseline of 1961-1990 here, so he clearly agrees with the AR4 and AR5 authors that this is the most appropriate thing to do :-)
The fact that the final AR5 figure is consistent with the equivalent AR4 figure shows that they haven't introduced anything new here - they've just done what they did before.
2. The AR4 envelope from the SOD figure, based on AR4 Figure 10.26, is from a Simple Climate Model (SCM) which only represents the long-term trend and does not include natural variability like a GCM (see here for the figure - the legend says its from an SCM). The new AR5 figure shows the spaghetti diagram from the CMIP3 GCMs, which do include natural variability.
Since natural variability is important on the timescales under consideration here, it makes more sense to compare the observations with models that include natural variability (GCMs) rather than those which don't (SCMs).
So in both aspects, the published AR5 figure is scientifically better than the SOD version, as the model-obs comparison is done like-with-like.
Actually my Climate Audit comment is currently awaiting moderation - hopefully it will appear there soon.
@ Dung
Your handle is well chosen perhaps, and stirring it ?
Why would you want "Eye Spy Massive Fraud and Jules Maigret" to "get off this blog" ?
Are you a fifth columnist for the British Climate Change Committee ?
Have You something to fear from exposure of Mr. Skea or Mr. Krebs ?
"credentials" of the British Climate Change Committee are here ....
www.theccc.org.uk/about/structure-and-governance/committee-on-climate-change
and I see that Mr. Brian Hoskins is in there as well as Lord May and Sam Fankhauser
There is a very perceptive piece (paywalled) by Tim Black of Spiked which is just up. However, there is a little audio piece available for free, which I guess contains the gist of the piece. A link to the page it's on is down below...
It does not consider the science (although Mr Black does not seem to think much of that). It addresses the political issues, and makes the case that the IPCC is so political because it has actually been given the political job to do. The politicians have abdicated responsibility, have said, in effect, "We want to push this policy through - do it for us".
Tim Black bemoans this abdication on the part of the politicians, which leads to an undemocratic tyranny of 'science manipulators'. He points out that, even if the science were true, it should still be a political discussion as to what we should do about it - cut back on CO2, geoengineer the problem away, go nuclear - all these are possible options which have been taken out of our hands by the 'scientific pronouncement' that the ONLY way ahead is to cut CO2.
SPIKED 'Green Scares' item
It's well worth listening to...
An extended comment at Climate Audit, by physicist R.G. Brown of Duke Univ., makes some important points about the problem with combining all the model runs into one graph, when almost every model run taken individually would fail badly:
excellent dissection of IPCC statistical failings in misuse of CMIP3 model runs
Richard Betts,
You're handwaving doesn't work anymore, please get used to it.
I've asked you this question before without response. Do you sleep well at night? How can you, in all honesty, accept the deception of the AR5 SPM without question?
In a quiet moment of reflection, just before going to sleep, you might want to reflect on your actions.
That you are prepared to enter the "lions den" here indictates that you could be a man of courage, if so, please use it for the good and challenge the tenets of your organization and superiors.
When our host says 'Calm down everyone please.' and he's ignored that's poor form.
When he made the claim, on the BBC, that this blog is generally respectful and then so many denizens ramp up the Ad Hom rhetoric and spittle-flecked rants then if he calls time and suspends this blog I'd be sad but understanding.
Get a grip some of you!
The Guardian has an informative article on the current situation:
BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics' airtime
Steve Jones among experts querying BBC 'false balance' in giving climate sceptics 'undue' voice on global warming study
"Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, based at the London School of Economics, said: "The BBC's coverage of the new climate-change report was variable, with some excellent reporting by its science and environment correspondents, but some very poor contributions from presenter-led programmes.
"In particular, the World At One on Friday provided a stunning display of false balance when it devoted less airtime to IPCC scientists than it did to Bob Carter, a sceptic who is funded by a free-market lobby group in the US, the Heartland Institute. Carter was allowed to make a number of inaccurate and misleading statements unchallenged.""
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics
No point joining in here at the moment. I'll come back when the conspiracy theorists, the fraud theorists and the nitpickers have wound down a bit.
Richard Betts is probably wasting his time too. He provides, on request, an explaination for a technical point on one of the AR5 graphs and is accused of handwaving. This is not an atmosphere in which to discuss the science.
@RoyFOMR
Well yes that's broadly correct, but in "The Bish"s preamble to this thread he stated that ...
"the tales of malfeasance are flowing already. Steve McIntyre has already blogged about some misleading behaviour by senior scientists involved in the review".
The commenters, including myself are incensed if there is malfeasance, that is to say Wrongful conduct by public officials, including by those disingenuous members of the so called British Climate Change Committee, of which Professor Jim Skea actually was a founding member. (www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/220208JimCCC)
In this "Guest Blog from Jim Skea" he explains, "I will be working together on the Research Councils UK Energy Programme Strategy Fellowship (RCUKEPSF for short) and the development of a roadmap to help inform the Research Councils funding strategy in the energy area." (www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/blogpost187)
UKERC explains, "The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) carries out world-class research into sustainable future energy systems. It is the hub of UK energy research and the gateway between the UK and the international energy research communities. Our interdisciplinary, whole systems research informs UK policy development and research strategy." (www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/About_us)
RCUK explains further, "The Research Councils UK Energy Programme aims to position the UK to meet its energy and environmental targets and policy goals through world-class research and training. The Energy Programme is investing more than £625 million in research and skills to pioneer a low carbon future. This builds on an investment of £839 million over the past eight years" (www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/xrcprogrammes/energy/Pages/home.aspx)
With such vast sums at stake, and the "Roadmap" developed by Jim Skea, then surely it is right that his motives are questioned, and the question of malfeasance was, after all mooted in the "Bish"s own preamble to this thread, thereby opening the door to further allegations.
I have tried to put this in a calm and rational manner, but Eye Spy Massive Fraud is correct when he advises that the correct course is to report such suspicions to the appropriate authority, so that they may pursue miscreants through due Legal Process. The Fraud Advisory Panel seems like the correct place for readers with any evidence to go to vent their spleen in the correct forum, by making formal complaints.
Richard Betts -
As of this moment, your comment is not yet up at CA, although one can see your note to Steve to rescue it from moderation.
At CA, I wrote: "[I]t’s disingenuous to include the entire range of FAR predictions, from “business as usual” to scenario D — “stringent controls in industrialized countries combined with moderated growth of emissions in developing countries”. Scenario D has clearly not occurred. The IPCC should compare observations with the low/best/high estimates of “business as usual”, given in FAR SPM Figure 8. [All time series re-baselined to some common period such as 1961-1990.]"
Can you please respond to this? It seems inconceivable to me that one of the myriad reviewers did not object to this.
@ Robert Christopher
What you have to remember about any comments made by Bob Ward is that he is the Policy & Communications Director of the Grantham Institute, at Imperial College, and that Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS, the Director, and his Co-Director of the Grantham Institute, Professor Samuel Fankhauser, are both Members of the UK Climate Change Committee.
It seems like Jim Skea has been proselytising for "Clean Energy" and "Green Taxes" since 1991.
He's been at the forefront of all this since before even Al Gore !
see the url - www.esrc.ac.uk/search/search-page.aspx?q=*:*&filters=on&pi_name=Prof+Jim+Skea&tab=grants
Oh !
Richard Betts,
The graphic you link to states that the surface temp data was baselined on the 1961-1990 mean, but doesn’t actually say that that’s what they did with the projections too. In fact, it appears that the projections were based on 1990 in the same way they had been in earlier ARs. See:
I could find no discussion of what was done on this graphic in the relevant chapter either, but perhaps I missed it. Do you know where this was discussed? Also, wouldn’t rebasing the projections onto the 1961-1990 mean throw out the hindcasts? Wouldn’t they all be running too cool?
I'm just a layman but the big enchilada here seems to be moving the goalposts far enough so that when the time comes that they'll really truly have to admit that they have no clue what they are talking about they will all be retired, policy will be well in place and billions will have been shifted from one group to another.
An important graph that was published by the IPCC has been replaced with another graph that is far more favorable to the IPCC's position that computer models are useful in "somersetting" warming. Given criticism of the act of replacement and of the new graph, spokespersons for the IPCC and some who support the IPCC position reply that the statistical changes in the new graph make perfectly good sense from the point of view of the statisticians. What is wrong with this picture?
Scientific Method requires of the scientist that he/she be the most severe critic of his own work and that he encourage others who offer criticisms. Following Scientific Method, the creators of the original graph should explain why they chose to present it as they did and why their original presentation did not follow the choices that they made in its replacement. Or the creators of the replacement graph should explain why they did not follow the choices in the original graph. Stating that the statistical changes make good sense to a statistician is irrelevant. The original graph made a statement and set up expectations in the public. The changes in the replacement graph changed the terms of presentation and prevented the public from determining whether their expectations had been realized.
To do anything less is simply to admit that the IPCC's graphs are systematically ambiguous and not suitable for making statements to the public. In this case, the IPCC has a duty to adopt a method of presentation for such graphs that will allow the public to check on their expectations.
Government bases radical policy decision upon a 'dodgy dossier'... I think I've seen this movie before and I didn’t like the way it ended (i.e. innocent people losing their lives and vast amounts of money being wasted)
entropic man,
"I'll come back when the conspiracy theorists, the fraud theorists and the nitpickers have wound down a bit."
Or, don't bother. That's the other option.
Oct 2, 2013 at 7:03 AM | James Evans
Personally I think your alternative was the intention all along but he was unable to resist the temptation to post a drive by.
Oct 2, 2013 at 1:26 AM | HaroldW
I think you are correct - this is the only substantive point worth pursuing. Otherwise, the new graph is disingenuous because it buries the observations inside the spagetti and darkly coloured "uncertainty bands", as distinct from the SOD graph that clearly shows observations crashing out of the range of projections. The SOD graph was a suicide note, and had to be altered to hide the decline - scenario D, a platefull of spagetti and dark coloured crayons do the job as best they can. However, anybody who looks carefully can still see reality crashing out of the model projections.
I am 100% certain that I am precisely between one foot and eight feet tall. My parents projections have proved most accurate. My father's projection having proved most fertile (fnargh).
Although the "spagetti trick" is not as outrageous as Mike's Nature Trick in hiding the decline, it nevertheless is disingenuous. The uninformed, casual observer would look at the new graph and conclude "we're all going to fry", whereas the same observer would have looked at the SOD graph and think "we're not going to fry, because the models are clearly useless".
I've done an animated .gif. How do they expect to get away with this?
Oct 1, 2013 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Blake
Nice one. http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dvuz2p.jpg
I've saved it as a .gif file for my future use. It displays nicely on Firefox.
@Richard Betts.
This is a completly spurious argument.
The object of predictions - I'm sorry projections - is to make a statement about the future.
The climate models made predictions that have turned out to be wrong. So, you alter the terms and timings of the models to fit the observations. This is scientifically wrong and fails every normal criterion of hypothesis testing,
If I were to do this is Medicine or in the Pharmaceutical industry, I would probably be dismissed, would loose any scientific reputation that I might have and be accused of scientific fraud.
Now, suppose that the latest set of predictions, which seem to have such wide errors distributions to render them useless, do not fit the observations, I suppose that you would simply say that those predictions were not correct but we now have a better set that do match observations.
I would agree that this is the normal way that hypotheses are tested but the IPCC is not an undergraduate class in basic scientific method, it is an organisation that makes predictions that are used to direct the economy of the World.
I don't think you understand how mainstream scientists are appalled by the antics of the climate community.
Evidence has amply shown that the final version of the SPM is largely a construct of political interest, with good science coming in a very distant second place.
Richard Betts knows this, and for reasons of his own is prepared to defend it.
So whatever he writes here - whilst it may in future form the basis for another Lew paper - should be shown courtesy but should nevertheless be read in that context.
Richard Betts is a civil servant doing the job he is paid to do by his employer the Met Office (whose Chief Scientist is Julia Slingo). So whatever he writes here should be shown courtesy but should nevertheless be read in that context.
Q"how much old rope do you need " ,A "about 20 feet "
" I have brought you 25 feet of old rope " , "that is not enough, I said I needed 35 feet of old rope and I knew this because when I measured it after I last saw you it was 30 feet long "
“so your clearly wrong on the length you brought me , so no money for that old rope “
Next episode , how hidecasting can ensure you win the lottery ever week but for some reason they will not give you the money .
Richard Betts has been a frequent contributor to the IPCC.
He was also one of the signators to the infamous Slingo Petition that claimed
"We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html
despite the evidence to the contrary as revealed in the Climategate mails.
Also this was signed at a time when there had been no warming for a decade. Inconceivable that he would have been unaware of that at the time. But has vigorously defended signing the petition.
That is the context in which I view his remarks which nevertheless are interesting to read as to how the IPCC contributors attempt to justify their actions.
Whilst it is always good to see Richard Betts here in the Bish's place, I believe he is one of the many that suffer from the mal de siecle, paradigm paralysis, as Judith Curry describes it
So whatever he writes here should be shown courtesy but should nevertheless be read in that context.
@ Marion
Thank you. I had not seen that, still there on the Met Office site (and presumably archived elsewhere) and - as the non-catastrophic years roll by - hopefully a source of ever deeper embarrassment to all who signed.
"deep and extensive" ... "painstaking and meticulous" ... "highest levels of professional integrity"
Indeed.
Marion,
Thanks for reminding us of Slingo's work of infamy. It will come back to haunt them. It calls to mind England in the16th century, when one psychopath after another ascended to the throne, and burned any dissenting voices for heresy.
Perhaps our good Bishop should insist of an oath of allegiance, such as:
"We, members of the UK science community, have zero confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are non-existent. They come from decades of flawed physics and fiddling the data, by many thousands of scientists across the world who sink to the lowest levels of professional integrity. Their research has been subject to pal review and publication, falsifying traceability of the evidence and in flagrant disregard of the scientific method."
Then we can burn each other at the stake, as one administration after another comes to power.
Dear God, what depths have we sunk to?
Judith Curry has picked up the baton and is running hard with it
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/
Re: Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 PM | Roger Longstaff
Oh, I think some simple honesty and integrity from our climate 'science' community would suffice.... and an end to the gravy train - the money is needed elsewhere - keeping our elderly and vulnerable warm in cold winters for one!
Richard Betts- you need to read this before you say that observations and models match
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers
Nature Climate Change 2013.
don't bother. That's the other option.
Oct 2, 2013 at 7:03 AM | James Evans
Believe me, its tempting. Perhaps I should follow von Schiller's advice.
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."
Richard Betts
you say
my bold
Is is scientifically better to say
or something along the lines of "the trend in the warming at the end of the last century came to an abrupt halt in 1998 and there has been no significant warming since that time."
I know I am not a scientist like what you are but to me the first of these statements which is taken from the SPM seems to be designed to mislead the reader. Whilst, as a statement of fact it may be true, it seeks to imply that the earth's surface is still warming. Which it is not.
Even though I am not a scientist I was taught that real scientists go out of their way to present an honest and accurate account of their findings even if (and especially if) those findings are contrary to a hypothesis that a particular scientist may have proffered. It seems I was taught wrong.
Dolphinhead, you were taught correctly - real scientists do, particularly *real* scientists who got their qualifications in a fairly grim town in central Berkshire.