The new math – IPCC version

WattsupWithThat.com ^ | April 12, 2010 | Global Warming Questions -IPCC

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

How the IPCC invented a new calculus

A new form of calculus has been invented by the authors of the the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.

How the new IPCC calculus works

Here’s how it works. Look at the following graph:

Now consider the following question:

Is the slope of the graph greatest at the left hand end of the graph, or the right hand end?

By just looking at the graph, or by using old-fashioned calculus developed by Newton and Leibnitz, you might think that the slope of the graph is similar at both ends. But you would be wrong. In fact, the slope is much greater towards the right hand end of the graph. To prove this, we need to apply the new calculus developed by the IPCC. To do this, we draw a sequence of straight-line best fits backwards from the right-hand end-point:

This clearly shows how the slope of the graph is in fact increasing.

How IPCC calculus is used in the IPCC report

Here is one of the key graphs from the AR4 report:

The graph is Figure 1 from FAQ 3.1, to be found on page 253 of the WG1 report. The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.

Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating. Of course, we could equally well start near the left hand end of the graph and obtain the opposite conclusion! (Just in case this is not obvious, see here for an example). A similar grossly misleading comparison appears at the very beginning of chapter 3, page 237:

“The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).“

How did this get through the IPCC’s review process?

The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests).

The answer is quite astonishing.  The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.

It is not clear who did this, but responsibility must lie with the lead authors of chapter 3, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. Here is the version of the graph that the reviewers saw in the second draft:

Note that in this version there is only one trend line drawn.

So why was this graph replaced by the grossly misleading one? Did any of the reviewers suggest that a new version should be drawn with a sequence of straight lines over different time intervals? No. One reviewer made the following remark:

‘This whole diagram is spurious. There is no justification to draw a “linear trend” through such an irregular record’

… but his comment was rejected.

It is the same story with the misleading comment in the SPM mentioned above (“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“). This statement was not in the original version reviewed by the scientists. It was inserted into the final draft that was only commented on by Governments.  The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that:

‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’.

Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC.

h/t to Roger Carr

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The AGW crowd is a bunch of Crooks.....

[edcoil]

The peers only looked that the skew and kurtosis

[Tarpon]

Isn’t the real point is that most people don’t do math anymore ... And wasn’t that the point of the made up pretty graphs?

The next comes when they public figures out how warm it was 2000 years ago, during the Roman Empire warm period.

[mlocher]

Somebody failed Digital Filtering and Sampling Theory. So, they invented a parallel mathematics, one that just does not add up.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Throw the buns out!

[BitWielder1]

If you torture numbers long enough you can make them say anything.

[Red Badger]

There’s GOTTA BE A HOCKY STICK IN THERE SOMEWHERE!...............

[Red Badger]

Buns?................

[onyx]

LOLOLOLOL

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[TribalPrincess2U]

Throw their buns out. lol

[Red Badger]

I'm sure some of their "buns" are quite moldy by now!...............

[zeugma]

BFL

[Marine_Uncle]

I wonder how many of our readership question the ramification of the phrase "global mean temperature". When applied to ground/sea measurements taken back in time to lets say mid eighteen hundreds does it really have much of a meaning?
The term is used to frequently. How do we know how much global surface was carefully measured year after year on land and on sea. And how reliable where the given data collection methods. Just as an example... how much of the world's seas did Great Britain, the USA and other European nations carefully throw buckets into the surface water and draw out and carefully measure temperature and salinity.
This whole system looks more suspect to inaccuracies the more I gaze at so many graphs.
And as all now admit... in recent times fewer and fewer ground stations across many land masses came into play. The grids increased for their models. More fudging took place. Until very recently we did not even have any real reliable satellite systems in place that within their given design can be relied on for providing accurate measurement of a given phenomena whether it be surface temperature, ice extent, atmospheric temperature measurements etc..
The whole process is full of question marks in my mind.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The measurement scheme is susceptible to fraud....which is where we are at the moment.

[Chode]

notice how even in their graph, that the temperature goes DOWN between ~1940 and ~1960, the biggest increase in man made CO2 production in history... and it went down.

so much for linking CO2 and globull warming...

[Tunehead54]

AGW is a fraud reference bump! ;-)

[seawolf101]

Where’s the Hockey Schtick??