Transcript Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and

NIPCC vs. IPCC:
No Evidence for AGW
5th EIKE Conference
Munich, Germany, Nov. 30, 2012
(Prof.) S. Fred Singer
University of Virginia/ SEPP
<[email protected]>
NIPCC: History and Reports
• Non-governmental Int’l Panel on Climate Change
• Founded 2003, Milano. Workshop 2007, Vienna
• “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate”
(2008) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
• “Climate change reconsidered” (2009, 2011)
http://www.NIPCCreport.org (in Chinese 2013)
• “Nature is the main driving factor of climate
change” (in Chinese 2012)
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific,
technical and socio-economic information relevant to
understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and
options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports
should be neutral with respect to policy, although they
may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical
and socio-economic factors relevant to the application
of particular policies. "
How to respond to AGW alarmists
• Just ask them: What is your single most
important piece of evidence for AGW?
• And you will get these common responses:
• CO2 is increasing: True,but we need temp data
• ClimModels show wmg: Only obs are evidence
• Glacier melting, sea level rising, storms, etc:
They don’t reveal the cause – or even tell temp
• Finally: The evidence is in the IPCC reports:
OK, then, let’s see if it holds up to scrutiny
IPCC ignores model-obs disparities
• There are at least three major disparities:
1. No warming trend since at least 2002 –
while atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly
2.Antarctic is cooling – models predict warming
3.Models predict “hot spot” in tropical
atmosphere – up to 2x of warming trend at
the surface. But radiosondes & satellites don’t
observe it – implying that sfc warming trend
(on decadal time-scale) is ~ zero
1. No warming – while CO2 rises
• UK Daily Mail on Phil Jones:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centreglobal-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
"He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been
no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this
was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
Skeptical Science (an alarmist site) on Phil Jones. They include
the text of his BBC interview:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-globalwarming-since-1995.htm
1.5
Temperature Anomaly
1
MSU – UAH LT
Arctic
Antarctic
0.5
0
Antarctic
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Arctic
Arctic
Arctic Trend:-0.096/dec (1979-1994) Antarctic Trend: -0.31/dec (1979-1994)
+0.58/dec (1994-2012)
+0.16/dec (1994-2012)
2006
1998
1990
1982
1974
1966
1958
1950
1942
1934
1926
1918
1910
1902
1894
1886
1878
1870
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
CCSP 1.1 – Chapter 1, Figure 1.3F PCM Simulations of
Zonal-Mean Atmospheric Temperature Change
Height (km)
SFC
ATM
SFC
ATM
SFC
CCSP 1.1 – Chapter 5, Figure 7E
Height (km)
A more detailed view of the disparity:
Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer IJC 2007
IPCC-2007 Claim for AGW
• AR-4-SPM p.10: “Most of the observed increase in
global ave temps since mid-20th cy is very likely
[>90%] due to observed anthropogenic
increase in GH gas concentrations.”
• Based on Fig 9.5 on p.AR4-684, which claims
large gap between reported recent temp and
unforced models – hence requiring GH forcing
• i.e., the IPCC-AR4 claim assumes perfect
knowledge of natural forcing of models and
that the only missing forcing must be from GH
gases like CO2
Source: IPCC-AR4-Fig. 9.5b
IPCC-AR-5: review of Chapter 10 (“Attribution”)
and Chapter 13 (“Sea Level Rise”)
• Chapter 10 is the most important by far. It deals with
Attribution and provides the science base for the IPCC claim
that recent warming is anthropogenic – in its Summary for
Policymakers and elsewhere.
• The key result of Chapter 10 may be seen in Fig. 10.1. The top
panel (Fig 10.1a) shows the Global Mean [Surface]
Temperatures with dark grey lines (no error intervals shown)
and the results of GCMs that use only “natural forcings” -from CMIP3 and “other sources” (light grey lines) and from
CIMP5 (pink lines). The time interval is 1860 to 2010.
Figure AR5-10.1a compares global mean surface temperatures
and models and shows almost perfect agreement after 1965
Obs and Models agree? – “curve-fitting”
• How does IPCC get such perfect agreement?
The answer is simple; it’s done by ‘curve
fitting.’ They select just the right sensitivity of
the climate model (from between 1.5 and 4.5
degrees C--- i.e. a range of 300%), this is quite
easy to do but really meaningless
• But note lack of agreement before 1960; it
shows imperfect curve-fitting – ignored! –
but seen more clearly HERE
Best Fit
Obsv.
Anthrop.
Frcg.
Natural Frcg.
Curve Fitting: How to do it
• IPCC’s fit between models and obs (1900-70)
is based on ‘educated’ choices of model parameters (mainly for cloud physics) and on
neglect of major natural forcings (e.g., solar
activity; atm-ocean oscillations)
• [According to physicist Freeman Dyson, the
famous mathematician John von Neumann
stated: "Give me four adjustable parameters
and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more,
and I can make his trunk wiggle." ]
Figure 10.1b shows the same set of observations and
same models (but without forcings from greenhouse
gases). Now there is a strong disagreement after 1965.
Then IPCC asserts that this difference between
unforced models and observations must be due to
greenhouse gas forcing: this is their main piece of
evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic global warming).
• To this claim I can offer the following 3 comments:
• 1.
IPCC admits it really does not know all of the natural
forcings that should go into the models. This is also shown by
the disagreement before 1965. It is also evident that IPCC
models ignore changes in solar activity as well as natural
oscillations of atmosphere-ocean systems. They also ignore
the huge uncertainties in aerosol forcings (which are absorbed
in their choice for climate sensitivity).
Critique of IPCC “evidence”
• 2.
My second comment relates the validity of the
observations, in particular the large temperature increase
starting about 1976 until the end of the century. Since these
are global temperature data, they relate mainly to SST. But
the latest SST data don’t show such an increase (see figure
below: Gouretski and Kennedy GRL 2012) and the latest OHC
(Ocean Heat Content) data (from NODC) agree that there has
been little warming, if any, between 1976 and 2000. The
same result is also shown by NMAT (night-time marine air
temp) data from Hadley (see figures below).
• 3.
Most important, the same models and chosen sensitivities
(to fit sfc data) cannot explain also the trends for atmospheric
temperatures, both global and tropical, from MSU-UAH-LT
Three Problems with IPCC ‘Evidence’
• 1.IPCC forces an agreement between obs
temp (1900-70) and models by ‘curve-fitting’
• 2. ‘Evidence’ is shown only for Global
average; but not for NH, SH, or Tropics.
• 3. ‘Evidence’ is shown only for Earth sfc case:
There is ~zero (1970-2000 obs-model) gap for
ocean, atmosphere, or for proxy temperatures
• **But without such a gap between obs and
unforced models, AGW must be insignificant
Again: Is there Disparity (Gap) between
Modeled and Observed Temp Trends?
• IPCC-AR4 claims of AGW (i.e., GHG warming), are based on
reported rapid rise of “obs” global mean surface (GMS)
temperature since 1978 – in agreement with GHG-forced models,
but not with unforced models. We can show that this is mostly a
meaningless “curve-fitting” exercise, depending on suitable choices
of forcings and model parameters. Also, models ignore climate
effects of solar activity changes (and cosmic rays and cloudiness), as
well as internal atm-ocean oscillations.
• But the IPCC ‘proof’ applies only to the global-mean: the same
curve-fitting parameters don’t work for NH and SH separately.
• Also: IPCC ‘proof’ applies only to land-surface temp data. Oceanic,
atmospheric, and (non-thermometer)‘proxy’ data show no
significant gap – hence, only minor (human-caused) GH-gas
forcing.
Discrepancies between Data Sets
• Criterion adopted: Temp difference 1995-1942
-------------------------------------------------------------Land-based sfc; Global (IPCC):
Diff=~0.5C
»
US (GISS):
Diff=~zero
• Ocean: SST (Gouretski GRL 2012) Diff=~zero
NMAT (Hadley Centre)
Diff=~zero
• Atm: Satellite MSU-LT (1997-79) Diff=~zero
Radiosondes (1997-79)
Diff=~zero
• Proxies (mostly land-sfc)
Diff=~zero
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. Atmosphere is not warming 197997 – [and again from 2002-present]
• Satellite data show no significant warming in
the lower troposphere – from 1979 to 2000
(ignoring the 1998 temp ‘spike’ from El Nino)
• Throwing some doubt on the reported
warming trend reported by land-surface
thermometers from weather stations
• [Note also the temp ‘step’ of 2001-2002,
followed by another ~zero trend to present –
contrary to GH models]
MSU UAH-v5 LT
Temperature
TR
TR
GL
TR
GL
GL
GL
2. Sea surface is not warming 1979-97
• SST data come from many (conflicting) sources
• We rely on NMAT (night-time marine-air
temp) ship obs -- from UK Hadley Centre
• NMAT doesn’t agree with IPCC’s SST
• Confirms the 1910-40 temperature rise
• But note that 1990s temp values do not
exceed 1940 – unlike land-sfc temp, which the
IPCC uses for its claim of AGW.
• Similarly for SST (Gouretski,Kennedy GRL2012)
TR
TR
GL
GL
5-year running NMAT Source: John Kennedy
SST
(Gouretski et al GRL 2012)
3. Proxy data mostly show no
warming either for 1979-1997
• Based on tree-rings, ice-cores, lake-sediments,
etc. – i.e., independent non-thermometer data
• They confirm 1910-40 warming by weather
stations; but show no post-1940 warming -- unlike
land-sfc temp, which IPCC uses for its AGW claim
• (The Hockeystick authors [MBH Nature 1998]
suppressed their post-1978 proxy results -- likely
because they showed no warming trend. We
should insist on their release and publication.)
Fig. 16. The climate record as deduced from the width of tree rings. Compared are the ringwidth chronology (solid line) and the reconstruction of Arctic annual temperature anomalies
(dashed line) [Jacoby et al. 1996, reprinted with permission, (c) American Association for the
Advancement of Science]. Note the sharp increase between 1880 and 1940.
Tree ring
Esper et al, Nature 2012
Here are questions that require detailed quantitative answers
from IPCC, with references to publications where appropriate
.
1. How is Fig. 10.1 of AR-5 different from Fig. 9.5 of AR-4? Are the differences
substantial? Explain.
2. Do “natural forcings” include volcanic eruptions and internal oscillations (ENSO,
PDO, etc)? Explain
3. How do the models handle solar variability (TSI, solar-wind-cosmic-rays, etc)?
4. How do the models explain the observed warming of 1910-1940?
5. What accounts for the sudden cooling around 1965 shown in model results?
6. Turning to Fig. 10.1a, which models agree best with observations of 1970-2010?
What are their climate sensitivities (CS)?
What are the details of their direct and indirect aerosol forcings (AF), incl their
geographic and temporal coverage?
7. Can Fig. 10.1a be shown separately for Tropics, NH and SH – instead of just for the
Global Mean, but using the same values for CS and historic AF scenarios?
8. Finally, can Fig. 10.1a be shown for MSU atmosph temp – instead of just sfc temp?
CONCLUSION
1. IPCC’s claim for AGW is based on flimsy ‘evidence’
from global land-sfc temp -- involving only selected
observations and ‘curve-fitting’ of models
2. We find no independent evidence in temp data
from ocean, atmosphere or proxies, for the surface
warming trend (mostly from land thermometers)
claimed by IPCC-4 in support of AGW; i.e., NO GAP
3. We
conclude that current warming is mostly natural
and that the human contribution is minor.
Comments on AR5-Chap 13—Sea Level rise –SLR
SL rise is generally considered the most important
consequence of putative global warming. Successive IPCC
reports have shown decreasing estimates for future SLR.
But AR-5 shows a larger rise.
SLR has a data problem: there is much disagreement in
published values. Therefore, projections depend greatly on
(subjective) selection of data. The chapter seems to be
dominated by the prejudices of the convening lead author.
He has long held to the claim that SLR shows acceleration
during the 20th century. This may or may not be true; most
authors claim that there is no acceleration or even
deceleration (see Holgate GRL 2007).
IPCC-AR5 ignores contrary data
In any case, chapter 13 is remarkable in that it ignores the work of established and
respected researchers. For example, I could not find any reference to the coral studies
of Fairbanks, Lightly, or Macintyre. Of course, there is no reference to Morner; but
there is also no reference to Walter Munk. The list of references does not include
Trupin and Wahr, Behre, or Houston. Bruce Douglas, one of the most respected
workers in this field, gets one mention to a chapter in an obscure conference volume.
Simon Holgate is cited only twice. On the other hand, Rahmstorf, whose so called
“theory” conflicts directly with empirical data, is cited prominently.
Tidal gauge record 1900-2005
(Holgate GRL2007)shows deceleration
The summary graph is Fig. 13.21, showing ‘selected’
data for 1700-2010 and projections to 2100
Comments on SLR: Fig AR5-13.21
• 1. No rise is shown from 1700 to 1880 – contrary to many published data
• 2. What physical event might cause a sudden acceleration at 1880?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/making-hay-of-sea-level-riseestimates/
• 3. What might cause an acceleration at ~1990? Satellite data incorrect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-agrasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/
• 4. AR-5 projects a linear rise of 5 to 8 mm/yr out to 2100 – depending on
CO2 scenario -- 3 times the rate of rise of 20th century tide-gauges and
about twice current satellite values. The min estimate for (2100--2000) is
now doubled: ~35cm vs 18cm (in AR-4)
This AR-5 projection has already been falsified by the observed SL rise
since 2000.
Extra Slides
Questions to ask Warmers
• Explain: Why did climate warm 1910-1940?
• Why did climate cool 1940-1975? If by
aerosols, explain difference between NH and
SH on the basis of climate models
• Why the step increase (“jump”) in 1976-77 –
and again in 2001-2002?
• Why no warming trend since 2002?
• And – Why no warming of NMAT, atmosphere
(balloon-radiosondes and also satellite-MSU
data), and non-thermometer proxies?
Temp vs. Temp Trends
• A common (but misleading) reply by Warmers:
“The past decade is the warmest in X years.”
• True, but Trend (degK/decade) was ~zero.
One must not confuse Trend with Temp (degK)
• According to models, Temp Trend (not Level)
should follow climate-forcing GH-gas Trend
Solar activity changes have
greatest climate effects
• Most important on yearly/decadal time-scale;
• through energy modulation of cosmic rays by
interplanetary magnetic scattering centers
[Laster, Lenchek, Singer. JGR 1962] ;
• in turn, modulating cloudiness in lower
atmosphere – thereby changing Earth albedo
– and solar energy reaching sfc [Svensmark]
Stalagmite Records in Oman
– a Proxy for Solar Activity
18O – a Proxy for Temperature
14C
The stalagmite record shows
a remarkably close
correlation between 14C and
18O over a period of more
than 3,000 years.
Thus, a strong association
exists between solar activity
and temperature.
 One Century Duration!
Neff et al. (2001)
T
CR
T
SOL
IPCC-AR-5, p. 7-43
•Finally, IPCC admits that cosmic ray changes can
affects clouds – and climate:
•“Many empirical relationships have been reported
between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and
some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al.,
2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The
forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone
does not seem to account for these observations,
implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism
such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus
here on observed relationships between GCR and
aerosol and cloud properties.”
Our energy future is bright – IF…
• President Barack Obama has said that
• he would make electricity prices “sky-rocket”
• [after losing on cap & trade] “there are other
ways to skin the cat” [like unleashing EPA?]
• the most important policy issue he would
address in a second term is climate change!!!