5 IPCC Assessments Don’t Show Correlation Of Temperature And Severe Weather

Another Ronald Bailey of Reason.com posting is our feature today.   On 8 April, Bailey posted “Detection of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming:What The IPCC Said Back In 1990”.

si[imagesBailey’s previous posting listed reasons why he had switched from a skeptic to a warmer. He said there was a lot of pushback to that posting. People were challenging his assertions about climate models predictions of hurricanes, droughts, etc. He decided to review the 5 Assessment Reports (AR) produced by the Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC), beginning with the first one issued in 1990. The results of the review in his words:

“As far as I can tell, all of the reports admit that the observational data do not definitively show any trends with regard to those particular aspects of climate. With regard to model outputs concerning those trends, the IPCC reports characterize them using tentative terminology such as “encouraging” back in 1990 and “medium evidence” and “medium agreement” in matching observational trends in the most recent report. In general, the models are not predicting a worsening trend in hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts, at least in the short run.”

So the warmer’s bible cannot make the connection between “global warming” and severe weather.   But as that does not fit the narrative of the alarmist among the AGW crowd, they are ignoring this inconvenient fact.

Along the way in the review, Bailey came across  section 8.4 titled “When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected? “ from the 1990 AR.   The text said:

The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level.”

The enhanced greenhouse effect happens when CO2 causes an increase in temperature. That increase creates water vapor which then triples the effect. This is the positive feedback mechanism that the climate models have that predict very high global temperatures. Temperatures that CO2 alone could not produce.

Skeptics are very skepical about the enhanced greenhouse effect. See Climate Change Sanity for further elaboration.

The section sets a standard by which, in the future, detection of the “enhanced greenhouse effect can be made. It continues with this text:

“Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods should produce earlier results. We take a conservative view as a starting point namely that the magnitude of natural variability is such that all of the warming of the past century could be attributed to this cause. (Note that this is not the same as denying the existence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. With such a noise level the past warming could be explained as a 1°C greenhouse effect offset by 0.5°C natural variability.) We then assume, again somewhat arbitrarily that a further 0.5°C warming (i.e., a total warming of 1°C since the late nineteenth century) is required before we could say with high confidence, that the only possible explanation would be that the enhanced greenhouse effect was as strong as predicted by climate models. Given the range of uncertainty in future forcing predictions and future model-predicted warming when would this elevated temperature level be reached?

So they believe they have a standard that allows them to detect the enhanced greenhouse effect. The 1990 AR provided the graph below to illustrate how they could confirm the enhanced greenhouse effect.

DetectionWarming       Figure 8.5  (The Y axis is “global-mean temperatrure change °C)

The answer is given in Figure 8.5. [Basically, the upper curve is assumes a fast warming rate and the lower one a slow warming rate. If fast, warming will be detected by 2002; if slow no detection until 2047.]

”If a further 0.5°C warming were chosen at the threshold for detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect then this would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2047.

On the basis of this simple analysis alone we might conclude that detection with high confidence is unlikely to occur before the year 2000. If stringent controls are introduced to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions and if the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range of model predictions then it may be well into the twenty-first century before we can say with high confidence that we have detected the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Bailey observes:”

I have earlier reported the various per decade warming rates in the observational record. The highest rate is +0.16°C per decade and the lowest is +0.13°C per decade. Assuming those rates had been maintained since 1990 (and they have not been so) mean global temperature would have risen by between +0.4°C and +0.325°C by now.

In other words, enhanced greenhouse warming above the noise of natural climate variability would not yet have crossed over the benchmark (+0.5°C) set by the IPCC back in 1990. Interesting.

The 1990 IPCC report notes that much depends on climate sensitivity; how much warming can be expected for a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Low sensitivity means slower and less warming and higher means the opposite. That issue remains unsettled science.

I am sure you noticed that the first threshold of 0.5C was due to occur in 2002. Here we are some 13 years later and it still hasn’t reached the threshold.




One response to “5 IPCC Assessments Don’t Show Correlation Of Temperature And Severe Weather

  1. Pingback: Making It Criminal To Be A Skeptic—The First Amendment Is Under Siege | Climate Change Sanity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s