Phil's Pew Research Summary:

In Latin America, more people are worried about climate change than about 'territorial disputes between China and its neighbours'. Or 'tensions between Russia and its neighbours'.

Can't say this is earth-shattering news...Latin America is a long way away from both China and Russia. And in Surrey I don't spend much time worrying about relations between Paraguay and Bolivia either.

C'mon, Phil...up your game..!

He commends the 1990 scenarios, shows no evidence for them, then hopes to fool us with some post 2000 unattributed data.

<Sigh> IPCC AR1 (1990) is not hard to find, it gave temperature projections under 4 scenarios, labelled A-D. Scenarios B&C turned out closest to reality and did not diverge much over the relevant period. To quote the Summary

under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)

The linear slope in HADCRUT4 since 1990 is 0.17C/decade.

Discussed here

It is not credible to describe the chart as 'unattributed', every data source is clearly labelled and in the public domain.

HADCRUT - from the HADLEY centre http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
Cowtan and Way, York University http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html
NOAA - US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Authority http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
GISTEMP - NASA Goddard Institute http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
CMIP - Coupled Model Intercompariosn Project - available through Climate Explorer https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi

'The models overestimate temperature' has gone the same way as 'no global warming for <n> years'

So it goes.

No need to up my game when all you have is spectacularly selective quotation.

Publics in 19 of 40 nations surveyed cite climate change as their biggest worry, making it the most widespread concern of any issue included in the survey. A median of 61% of Latin Americans say they are very concerned about climate change, the highest share of any region. And more than half in every Latin American nation surveyed report substantial concerns about climate change. In Peru and Brazil, where years of declining deforestation rates have slowly started to climb, fully three-quarters express anxiety about climate change.

I wonder why Matt Ridley ignored this major survey?

Actually, no I don't.

'I wonder why Matt Ridley ignored this major survey?

Anything to do with the fact that the UN My World Survey - (which shows ''climate change" to be dead last of 16 worries) had over 200 times as many respondents (45,000 vs 10,000,000)? And that was the one that Ridley chose to discuss

Which one would you focus on?

Why?

So Phil there have been 5 different IPCC reports with thousands of wrong predictions and projections about all sorts of things.

In your considered opinion, which ones should we view as being good guides to the future? And which can we safely forget. Please be definitive and very specific.

How much of your own money are you prepared to put down on your choice. And note that hindsight (Texas Sharpshooting) is not allowed as a forecasting tool.

One population was self-selecting, those with internet access, aware of the survey and willing to share their opinion, depending on respondents self-reporting their categories and with no controls on multiple voting. Web surveys are notoriously unreliable.

The other was a properly conducted poll from a respected research company with a published methodology.

So Phil there have been 5 different IPCC reports with thousands of wrong predictions and projections about all sorts of things.

You'll find it easy to furnish some examples from these thousands then, unless of course, we've gone from extreme selective quotation to wild exaggeration. The IPCC cannot predict how the world's economies and emissions levels will develop and so it issues scenarios covering a range of possibilities, basically conditional predictions. Looking back, over a period long enough for natural variability to average out, we can determine which of the Scenarios actually transpired and assess how well the corresponding projections matched observations. Done properly, the IPCC has done remarkably well.

But they indeed do not always get it right, the early reports confidently predicted the Artic ice cap was safe until 2050 at the earliest.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

Well, a coin-toss doesn't always get it right either. But a coin toss gives global-warming prognosticators a damn good run for their money (and is a lot cheaper). A bit like with people who know where the stock market or the currency markets are going.

Ahh... money. Such people who want your money (and also those environmentalists wanting to wind back the industrial revolution) have to do better. At a base level this is still accepted in most Western post-renaissance societies. Only 'climate science' appears to think it should be accepted on faith, and bears the hallmarks of religion and the practices of cults.

Many lay people think they are incapable of understanding the issues, when all they actually need to do is pretend that the climate-charlatan is using the same technique to ask them for their money, as the financial hucksters do. Ask for the details of predictions made, when they were made, the outcome, and what was the outcome as judged by the metrics given at the time of the prediction. The charlatans always wriggle in the last respect. If you can't change the factual failure of a prediction, change the definition of failure-success and hope nobody notices.

Mark Hodgson, try this link, for reasons why there are so many people living in the firing line of a future typoon in the Marshall Islands, with concomitant loss of life, that will be blamed on Global Warming

http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/typhoon/typhoon.html

There is this abstract by the same author, written in 1996
"Nontraditional settlement patterns and typhoon hazard on contemporary Majuro atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands"

Dirk H. R. Spennemann
DOI: 10.1007/BF01203842
Spennemann, D.H.R. Environmental Management (1996) 20: 337. doi:10.1007/BF0120384212Citations 1Shares 141Views

Abstract

"Low-lying islands and atolls are particularly prone to storm surges created by tropical depressions and typhoons. This paper presents a case study of traditional and contemporary settlement patterns of Majuro, the capital of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and discusses its vulnerability to such storm surges. The paper shows that the application of traditional knowledge extends to the realm of urban planning and that, in fact, ignoring this traditional knowledge as expressed in pre-World War II settlement patterns, exposes urban development to increased flood hazards, a risk which may exact a price too high in life and property."

The poorest and most vulnerable people are living on the strips of land that generations of Marshall Islanders have known are dangerous places. The "best" and "safest" land is all owned by the elders, and those who did well out of nuclear testing compensayshun from the US Government.

The reason so many "Developing Countries" are so enthusiastic about Global Warming, is because they have been "led to believe" that they will gets lots of money as "compensation". The Global Warming Advocates from Developing Countries are already paid very nicely to turn up at lavish conferences and squawk on demand and in perfect harmony with the conference organisers.

Ask for the details of predictions made, when they were made, the outcome, and what was the outcome as judged by the metrics given at the time of the prediction.

I've already provided the predictions from IPCC AR1. Here's another, the model outcomes for surface temperature under various scenarios from AR3 are online here. As it happens Scenario A2 best matches reality since the 1990 baseline. Under that scenario the IPCC projected a rise in temperatures of 0.35C between 1990 and 2010. The linear slope in the HADCRUT surface data for that period was 0.18C/decade. Not too shabby and no need to wriggle.

Phil Clarke.

'Looking back, over a period long enough for natural variability to average out, we can determine which of the Scenarios actually transpired and assess how well the corresponding projections matched observations. Done properly, the IPCC has done remarkably well'

Show us then, pal.

If they're that good, surely every climo in the world should be aching to tell us how good they've been....and every climate model rapidly homing in on the right answer - after all the 114 wrong ones.

Check out the Russian model, INM-CM4. It has been the most accurate and it has greater thermal inertia in the oceans, lower water vapour feedback and lower sensitivity than the others. Some of us are not surprised at its performance.
=======================

Phil Clarke, can you confirm when a "prediction" actually is a "prediction", and not a "projection" or "guess"? It seems that you and other experts are very fussy about details, but only when it suits you.

Why not just admit that Mann's Hockey Stick was a pack of lies, so that Climate Science does not get completely erased, before it is too late?

Latimer, already asked and answered.

Oh, and if your 114 figure derives from John Christy - you've been had.

Phil Clarke, why were you so easily convinced by Gergis then? You were "had".

Phil

Thank you for the correction.

I was mistaken to say that 114 from 114 climate models overestimated the temperature changes ('running hot')

It is, or course, only 111/114 (~97%) that are wrong.

No doubt you will join us all in calling for the immediate public defunding of the 111 in favour of those very few that are even in the right ballpark.

And in 5 years time we'll look again and turf out the one that's furthest from the observations as they are then.

This should give the powerful financial/career/status incentive to 'get it right' that academe in general and climatology in particular so lacks.

There was indeed a short (in climatic terms) recent period where observed temperature ran cooler than most of the model estimates; it was preceded by a period of similar length when the opposite was the case. The recent remarkable increase in observed temperatures has pushed the observed curve back above the models:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoydY7vVIAEk__i.jpg:large

But Christy's graphs were always a crock.

Phil Clarke

Gosh, that's a first

Mikey Mann's co-Climategate-conspirator Gavin Schmidt accuses somebody else of statistical chicanery.....

In other news...pot calls kettle black..

Latimer Alder Climate Science will demand funding to determine which shade of black will meet the approval of 97% of Climate Scientists, and then dispute the kettles political motivation. In the meantime, Climate Science will not have been advanced at all, exactly as normal, intended and predicted with 100% accuracy. This will be deemed a successful outcome by Climate Scientists.

Welcome back Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

Phil Clarke only has access to data/info sources that have been professionally peer reviewed and approved by Climatrollogists, and is as happy, content and "well adjusted" as the average North Korean.