Mark

Mark

Yes, the numbers he plots are not from that document, lucia has documented some of this at:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/reflections-on-continuuing-monckton-kerfuffle/

It was summarized by lucia in the following:

1. They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of appearing in the summary for policy makers of the AR4.
2. They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of appearing in Chapter 10 of the AR4.
3. They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of being the average of the multi-model ensemble used to develop projections in the AR4.
4. They are not computed by any method advocated or described anywhere in the IPCC AR4 or any previous incarnation of the Assessment Report.
5. The numerical values of Monckton’s projections do not correspond to anything a reader with ordinary reading skills would consider to be “IPCC projections” based on the content of the IPCC AR4, the TAR, the SAR or the FAR.

If anyone anywhere wishes to call the lavender-pink region Monckton calls the “IPCC projections” in his graphs, I guess they may do so. However, I will also ask them to write a dissertation on the meaning of “is”, placing it in the context of recent American history.

Which certainly agrees with my scrutiny of Monckton’s graphs.

Well it’s easy to be convincing when you get to fabricate the data, the data he calls ‘IPCC data’ doesn’t resemble any that I’ve been able to find!

Monckton gives a reference himself on page 7 of http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/chuck_yet_again_schmidt.pdf as

IPCC (2007), p 803

or is there some problem with that?

Cheers.

Well it’s easy to be convincing when you get to fabricate the data, the data he calls ‘IPCC data’ doesn’t resemble any that I’ve been able to find! This is the same problem that lucia found with his previous pamphlet. I note that he didn’t use the coronet/portcullis logo this time, perhaps it’s finally got through to him that he’s not a member of the House of Lords!

I don’t know the status of the current generation of systems, but I imagine a lot of researchers, brought up with the older systems, still have the above attitudes ingrained in their work habits. These attitudes appear endemic in Climate Science.

Joe

A1B and 20CEN Models (#23),
.
Willis Eschenbach:
.
Re: Jesper (#22), it’s not quite that bad. The “control runs” merely hold all of the inputs constant. They’re not eliminating “models that show climate change from effects other than CO2.’ They are eliminating models that “drift” when the “external forcings” are held stable.
.
My objection to that process is that we have little information on the natural variability of the earth in the absence of external forcings. From the claims of the AGW supporters, I deduce that “natural variability” is a) big enough to overpower any CO2 effects and to explain any model vagaries, and yet b) small enough to ignore at all other times.
.
However, since we don’t know how much the earth might “drift” in the absence of changes in the known forcings, as you point out, the cutoff is both suspect and arbitrary. Curiously, they don’t require that the models give realistic temperatures, only that they don’t drift …

w.

I quote Lucia as saying the following in the Unthreaded – n+2 thread in referring to Gavin’s special graphic, one which he generated as part of the ongoing Schmidt-Monckton Kerfuffle

Unthreaded – n+2 (#62)
.
Lucia:
.
” …. No precisely similar graphic appears in the AR4. Their projections in Figure 10.4 shows 1 standard deviation bounds based on the model mean temperature anomalies. The graph above [see the referenced post] and the one Gavin shows show larger uncertainty bounds based on the spread of “all weather in all models”. For whatever reason, the authors of the AR4 choose a graphic that suggests less uncertainty in their “prediction/projections”; now that the temperatures have been flat, Gavin prefers to show these larger ones …..”

When Willis Eschenbach refers to “the natural variability of the earth in the absence of external forcings”, he is referring to something we might think of as being “systemic internal variability.”
.
Lucia notes that the authors of IPCC AR4 set their modeled projections, as shown in Figure 10.4 of AR4, at 1 standard deviation bounds based on the model mean temperature anomalies, while Schmidt in his own graphic prefers wider bounds.
.
I have to wonder if Mother Nature, in setting her own objectives for managing an increase in the earth’s global mean surface temperature, doesn’t also set a performance goal of 1 standard deviation process control error.
.
Or perhaps Mother Nature really has no inclination towards raising the earth’s global mean surface temperature at all, but instead attempts to enforce a kind of Climatological Six Sigma Program to keep temperatures flat — a noble effort on her part at pursuing beneficial climate process control in mankind’s best interests, but an effort which unfortunately is being thwarted by mankind’s actions in relying so heavily on the carbon fuel cycle.

If they never stop drifting, there are serious problems! If they don’t end up anywhere near the planet earth temperature, that’s a problem also. (Finding the ‘steady’ temperature is a good reason to run until they stop drifting. I’m a bit perplexed that authors of the IPCC would include steady state earth solutions in the appendix of the IPCC if the models had not stopped drifting. But… there ya’ go.)