Below is a prospective blog posting for consideration and review. Please have at it, all criticisms welcome. -- KP

Back on January 27, sixteen scientists and engineers (many with undisclosed ties to the oil industry) wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal minimizing the dangers of global warming. The editorial drew quite a few negative reviews because of its bad science. Economist William Nordhaus publicly complained that the Gang of 16 had misrepresented his work. And at least two negative letters to the editor appeared in WSJÿ's own pages: one by Robert Bryer of the American Physical Society, and one by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other noted climatologists. The original editorial ran about 1200 words, while the two LTEs were about 700 words combined.

On February 21, the Journal doubled down with another 1900 words from the Gang of 16. One would think that a reputable newspaper, having been accused of misrepresentation in the first instance, would exercise great caution when publishing a second go-round by the same authors. Alas, this was not the case. The WSJ and its Gang of 16 have simply dug the hole deeper, this time by misrepresenting the IPCCÿ's First Assesment Report (FAR) of 1990. Hereÿ's the graph that appeared in the WSJ:

The eye is immediately drawn to the high-slope line labelled \"IPCC 1990\". This line shows a temperature increase of .32° per decade, far outside of most climate projections. Curious, I went back to the FAR and found these graphs of the IPCCÿ's 1990 projections from IPCC 1990, figure 6.11, page 190. (The original .pdf is a scanned image that is slightly skewed; I have corrected that here.)

FAR Figure 6.11: temperature projections

As you can see, the IPCC shows three graphs in the figure, for three different equilibrium climate sensitivities. This is because in 1990 the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity was not well known, and IPCC was covering several possibilities: (a) is for a sensitivity of 4.5° for CO2 doubling; (b) is for 2.5°, and (c) is for 1.5°.

Within each graph are four projections based on four emissions scenarios. Thus there is not one climate projection here, but twelve different projections based on twelve different possibilities. Here are my measurements of the temperature increase rates (in °C per decade) shown in the figure for these twelve possibilities, during the period 1990-2010.

Of these twelve possibilities, only one is close to the .32° per decade increase that the WSJ graph shows: the BaU scenario coupled with a sensitivity of 4.5°. This raises two important questions. First, when the IPCC report shows three possibilities for climate sensitivity, is it fair to claim (or to imply) that the highest of those three is more preferred by the IPCC than the other two? I think any fair-minded person would say the answer is no. In fact, most people would say that if any were preferred, it would be the middle of the three, not either extreme.

Current science has narrowed the range of possibilities for equilibrium climate sensitivity considerably. Both the 1.5° and 4.5° sensitivities now seem unlikely. The best estimte from the most recent IPCC report is about 3°, while Royce et. al. 2007 puts it at 2.8° based on 500 million years of climate data. So the middle of the three possibilities in 1990 has indeed turned out to be the most likely.

The second question that needs to be asked is, of the four emissions scenarios in these graphs, which has been closest to the emissions we have actually experienced during the past 20 years? The Gang of 16 seem to think it must be the BaU (business as usual) scenario, but a check of the specifics makes it clear that the BaU scenario of 1990 did not actually happen, thanks to lower emissions of CFCs and other conservation measures.

FAR figure A.6: Radiative forcing under different emission scenarios

From the FAR Annex figure A.6, here are the forcings in the year 2010 for these scenarios. (Once again the figure from the .pdf scan was skewed and was corrected before analysis.)

The actual forcing for 2010 of 2.81 Watts/m² is from NOAAÿ's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, and is identical to Scenario D.

The IPCCÿ's prediction in 1990 was based on one of four emission scenarios, and we now know that Scenario D was virtually identical to what we have actually experienced. That is primarily because of governmental actions to limit the emissions of CFCs, and (to a lesser extent) because of governmental steps in Europe to meet Kyoto standards.

If we look at the temperature predictions for Scenario D, the actual IPCC predictions from 1990 were increases of .25, .17, and .11 degrees per decade, based on sensitivities of 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5 degrees for CO2 doubling. The central figure of .17, based on a sensitivity of 2.5° (the sensitivity best supported in the literature, both then and now), is virtually identical to the actually observed temperature increase over the past 30 years, according to Foster & Ramstorf 2011.

To summarize, the IPCCÿ's First Assesment report of 1990 hit the bullseye. It was a remarkably accurate projection, especially considering that the climate models available in 1990 were crude by modern standards. The fact that we are at the low end of IPCCÿ's 1990 emissions scenarios is a testament to the fact that people and their governments can and have made significant contributions to the fight against climate change. The IPCCÿ's work, such as FAR, have been a large contributor to these collective actions.

The Wall Street Journalÿ's misrepresentation of the IPCCÿ's work does a disservice to its audience, and to society as a whole.

I Like it Keith. Simple expose on some really dodgy crap.

I tried a few of the links and they didn't work - you need to check them.

I like it!

I also like graphs that make things clearer. Could you perhaps add one at the end that makes it clear: 'what the Gang of 16 said' and 'what actually happened'?

And can you compare IPCC projections based on the actual forcings with what actually happened in a graph?

I understand it might unbalance the post visually so you might not want to do that.

I looked at this in a fair amount of detail in Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR, so you should reference it somewhere, and may want to use some of the figures.  I can update those to 2011 and check the baseline (which may need a little tweaking), if you want to use any of them.  I can also add a "what the Gang of 16 said" as Mark suggests, if you'd like.  That would be simple enough.

Bickmore also had a good post on this at RC, and Stefan had a good first comment pointing out some other problems with this figure.  You may want to incorporate and link to those.

I reckon the post should be re-arranged so that bullshit graph is buried in the middle of the post. As it stands you're promoting it.

Keith,

Recommend that you create a title box at the bottom of each graphic as per Dana's style. the title box should also include the sourceof each graphic.

When I run the cursor over a graphic, I get a very small vertical box containing a vertical/slanted squiggly line. I have no idea what this represents.

The SkS convention for graphics is the use the "Insert/edit image" tool to create an image for each graphic which contains a title of the graphic, When this is done, running the cursor over the graphic produces a descriptor box. 

Ketih,

In the middle section of the article, you pose two questions. suggest that you emphasize both questions by blocking each one and using italic-bold type for each.  

I sort of agree with Rob.

Would it be worth turning the whole thing on its head? Comparing reality with IPCC projections, and then at the end showing what they did?

I like that idea.  Show the graphics as in my post first, then show theirs.  That way you avoid reinforcing the myth.

Do you realise that with everyone suggesting how to write more effectively structured myth rebuttals, we are spontaneously and organically training each other to become kick-arse debunking Ninjas? That is very cool.

You're such a geek John :-)

Fine suggestions all, and I will be re-writing this to incorporate them.  Thanks much.

KP

You're such a geek John :-)

Akira Kurosawa lives, Kick-arse Ninja's indeed. Just remember. Ninja's have nothing to do with Panda's! China/Japan Not that much in common

I like this graphic from Stefan's site.  As Dana notes, Stefan makes some other very valid points.

He also notes:

"Temperature trends are now near the centre of the TAR projections, with linear trends of 0.19 and 0.17 +/- 0.08 ºC per decade in the GISS and Hadley data, as compared to projected linear trends ranging from 0.15 to 0.20 ºC per decade in the TAR projections (depending on emissions scenario)."

Models falsified my a$$.

What did the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report predict? The Wall Street Journal gets it wrong.

A recent comment thread at RealClimate contains some loose talk about Skeptical Science, including one commenter's complaint that SkS has not (or not adequately) discussed the climate projections of the IPCC's 1990 First Assesment Report (FAR). Although we have posted about the FAR in the past, this is a good time to take another look.

Here are the IPCC's 1990 projections from FAR, figure 6.11, page 190. (The original .pdf is a scanned image that is slightly skewed; I have corrected that here.)

FAR Figure 6.11: temperature projections

As you can see, the IPCC shows three graphs in the figure, for three different equilibrium climate sensitivities. This is because in 1990 the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity was not well known, and IPCC was covering several possibilities: (a) is for a sensitivity of 4.5° for CO2 doubling (which FAR labels as a "high" estimate); (b) is for 2.5° (FAR calls this the "best" estimate), and (c) is for 1.5° (called the "low" estimate).

Within each graph are four projections based on four emissions scenarios. So there is not one climate projection in the FAR, but twelve different projections based on twelve different possibilities. Here are my measurements of the temperature increase rates (in °C per decade) shown in the figure of these twelve possibilities, for the period 1990-2010.

Table 1: FAR Figure 6.11 temperature projections

The discussion on RealClimate was kicked off by recent editorials in the Wall Street Journal. Back on January 27, sixteen scientists and engineers (many with undisclosed ties to the oil industry) wrote an editorial in the WSJ minimizing the dangers of global warming. The editorial drew quite a few negative reviews because of its bad science. Economist William Nordhaus publicly complained that the Gang of 16 had misrepresented his work. And at least two negative letters to the editor appeared in WSJ's own pages: one by Robert Bryer of the American Physical Society, and one by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other noted climatologists. The original editorial ran about 1200 words, while the two LTEs were about 700 words combined.

On February 21, the Journal doubled down with another 1900 words from the Gang of 16. One would think that a reputable newspaper, having been accused of misrepresentation in the first instance, would exercise great caution when publishing a second go-round by the same authors. Alas, this was not the case. The WSJ and its Gang of 16 have simply dug the hole deeper, this time by misrepresenting the FAR. Here's the graph that appeared in the WSJ:

The Wall Street Journal's graph, intended to show how bad climate models are.

The eye is immediately drawn to the high-slope line labelled "IPCC 1990". This line shows a temperature increase of .32° per decade, far outside of most climate projections. Looking back at Table 1, only one projection is anywhere close to the .32° per decade increase that the WSJ graph shows: the BaU scenario coupled with a sensitivity of 4.5°. This raises two important questions.

1. When the IPCC report shows three possibilities for climate sensitivity, is it fair to claim (or to imply) that the highest of those three is more preferred by the IPCC than the other two?

I think any fair-minded person would say the answer is no. In fact, most people would say that if any were preferred, it would be the middle of the three, not either extreme. And since the IPCC itself labels the middle of these estimates as "best", they have answered the question themselves. Using the "high" estimate alone, as the WSJ has done, is deceptive at best.

Beyond that, current science has narrowed the range of possibilities for equilibrium climate sensitivity considerably. Both the 1.5° and 4.5° sensitivities now seem unlikely. The best estimte from the most recent IPCC report is about 3°, while Royce et. al. 2007 puts it at 2.8° based on 500 million years of climate data. So the middle of the three possibilities in 1990 has indeed turned out to be the most likely. The IPCC's label of "best" was correct at the time.

2. Of the four emissions scenarios in these graphs, which has been closest to the emissions we have actually experienced during the past 20 years?

Here are the FAR's projections of radiative forcing for the four emissions scenarios they considered:

FAR figure A.6: Radiative forcing under different emission scenarios

Once again the figure from the .pdf scan was skewed and was corrected before analysis. Here is a table summarizing those forcing estimates.

Table 2: FAR Figure A.6 radiative forcing projections

The actual forcing increase of +0.63 W/m² is from NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. The FAR projections were based on four emission scenarios, and we now know that Scenario D was virtually identical to what we have actually experienced, and about half that of the BaU scenario. The BaU scenario of 1990 did not actually happen. The Montreal Protocol put an end to manufacturing of some of the most potent CFC's, and its effect has been swift and positive. Also, growing global recognition of the threat of climate change has rapidly increased the adoption of renewable energy, both in the US and especially in Europe; government subsidies such as feed-in tarrifs have encouraged this trend. Meanwhile, the rising price of fossil fuels has led to slower economic growth than most would have predicted in 1990.

If we look again at the temperature predictions for Scenario D, the FAR predictions were increases of .25, .17, and .11 degrees per decade, based on sensitivities of 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5 degrees for CO2 doubling. The central figure of .17, based on the best sensitivity estimate, is virtually identical to the actually observed temperature increase over the past 30 years. Foster & Ramstorf 2011 puts the increase at .16 (.02) °C/decade.

Actual IPCC 1990 projections under observed emissions (Scenario D), compared to observed temperatures (GISS)

To summarize, the IPCC's First Assesment report of 1990 hit the bullseye in terms of climate modeling. It was a remarkably accurate projection, especially considering that the climate models available in 1990 were crude by modern standards. The fact that we are at the low end of IPCC's 1990 emissions scenarios is a testament to the fact that people and their governments have made significant contributions to the fight against climate change. The work of the IPCC, such as FAR, has been a spur to these collective actions, and is the reason IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Wall Street Journal's misrepresentation of the IPCC's work does a disservice to its audience, to the public, and to mankind as a whole.

I think 'climate sensitivity' needs explaining. It is a technical term... and I'd still consider pushing the whole WSJ thing right to the back.

'Here's how you do it right. This is what the Gang of 16 did'.

Honestly, I'm surprised by them. Not including errors is basic stuff that anyone with a science degree should have an idea about - but they just ignore it. I mark lab scripts from undergraduates: if they'd handed that in I'd circle the whole section and write 'ERRORS!!!!' in big red (or pink, my red pen's out of ink atm) letters and then take off a bunch of marks.

This is the mistake that made me think they're intentionally lying, rather than just suffering from confirmation bias.

It is disappointing that this has not made it to publication yet. Is there any particular reason why not?  Sorry, that sounds bossy doesn't it? I just think it important to get this up.  Keith did an excellent job :)

Haven't heard any further from keith - can't publish if he's not ready.  I'll shoot him an email.

Keith,

Before you finalize, check out: WSJ Editorial Page: Once more, with feeling: Global Warming is computerized hokum built upon a falsified model posted on the Knight Science Journalism Center website.

"The fact that we are at the low end of IPCC's 1990 emissions scenarios is a testament to the fact that people and their governments have made significant contributions to the fight against climate change. "

As can be seen in the following graph (look at the light blue of Eastern Europe), it is more a testament to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent decimation of inefficient and polluting Eastern European (Soviet block) industry.

Further to my preceding post, recommended alteration highlighted:

"The BaU scenario of 1990 did not actually happen. The collapse of the former Soviet Union  led to a decimation of Soviet Block industry which nearly halved Eastern European emissions.  In addition the Montreal Protocol put an end to manufacturing of some of the most potent CFC's, and its effect has been swift and positive. Also, growing global recognition of the threat of climate change has rapidly increased the adoption of renewable energy, both in the US and especially in Europe; government subsidies such as feed-in tarrifs have encouraged this trend. Meanwhile, the rising price of fossil fuels has led to slower economic growth than most would have predicted in 1990."

and instead of the sentence mentioned in my previous post:

"As it happened, world events took an unpredictable turn in the 1990s which limited emissions growth to the low end of IPCC FAR predictions." 

FWIW, I agree that Tom's take away message is more accurate.

I got the thumbs-up from Keith, who said I can make any edits I feel are necessary.  So I'll incorporate the suggestions tonight, publish my Nordhaus post, link it in this one, and then publish this one tomorrow.

Agreed on the Soviet point, by the way.  I'll revise accordingly.

Okay, we should be good to go.

Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC

Re: kick-arse debunking Ninjas

John you should register the TM.

I don't see figures 1, 3, or 4 of this post displayed from one of my computer accounts (which has some fairly restrictive web-blocking for 'file sharing sites' and 'personal blogs').

Currently these are located at 'photobucket'. Can they be relocated and relinked to the SkS image store? I'm probably not the only person running into this issue.

It occurs to me that this is another opportunity for an animated graph.

- Show a chart of all 12 IPCC FAR projections.

- Highlight that the WSJ chart chose the highest one.

- Then fade out 8 of the projections to get rid of those where climate sensitivity is too high or too low.

- Then fade out the 3 with emissions that were significantly different from reality.

- Then overlay the observed GISS temperatures, to show whether it was IPCC or the Gang of 16 that actually got it right.

Thoughts?

It's beyond my graphical skills, sadly (though I imagine it's not too hard to learn how to do it?)

Speaking of which, what tools do you guys use to generate these animated graphs?