The temperature error of the IPCC’s model is now 47 %
The year 2015 is in the end. It is time to assess the validity of the IPCC’s model. I know that already this sentence irritates the IPCC organization. The reason is that IPCC should not carry out any research work and therefore there should be no IPCC’s own model. Anyway there is a presentation by name “Radiative Forcing by Emissions and Drivers” which includes a summary leading to the value of 2.34 W/m2 according to AR5 (Assessment Report 5). The IPCC organization has selected a number of research papers and combined from these papers the referred presentation. If I do my own selections and combinations, it would be called “Ollila’s model” (I have done it). Fair enough. But if I call IPCC’s model by its own name, I am called a bad boy. IPCC has different rules.
According to IPCC the RF (Radiative Forcing) is related to the surface temperature according to a very simple equation dT = CSP * RF, where dT is a temperature change at the surface and CSP is a climate sensitivity parameter (lambda). According to IPCC the value of CSP is 0.5 K/(W/m2) and it is almost constant. IPCC has used a lot of of work and money for composing AR5 and showing that the RF value of 2.34 W/m2 has been caused by the anthropogenic drivers (98 %) and by the sun (2 %). But surprise, surprise, in AR5 IPCC does not inform what is the dT value of RF value of 2.34 W/m2. Missing calculation skills are not the reason. There are 1552 pages in the Physical Science Basis of AR5, but this information cannot be found. I have challenged many people to find it but no results so far.
Well, the connection between the RF and dT is as simple as it could be: dT = 0.5 K/(W/m2) * 2.34 W/m2 = 1.17 K = 1.17 Celsius degrees. The error between the IPCC model and the observed temperature is 1.17 °C – 0.85 °C = 0.32 °C, which means a substantial error of 38 % in 2011. What is this error in the end of 2015? NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration belonging to U.S. Department of Commerce) is very IPCC-minded organization and they publish the annual RF values of GH gases. The increase from 2011 to the end 2015 (2015 value estimated by the author) is 0.16 W/m2. It means that the estimated RF value of 2015 would be 2.34+0.16 = 2.50 W/m2 corresponding to the global temperature increase of 1.25 °C. This value is 47 % higher than the observed temperature 0.85 °C, which has stayed about constant since 2000. This is illustrated in figure below.
The temperature increase of the IPCC’s model. The black curve is the combined model of Ollila.
The combined model by name “Sun+Space dust+GH gases” is developed by Ollila. This model has a very high correlation r2 of 0.971 (1.0 is maximum and 0.95 is a reliable sign of causality). The effects of this model in 2005 are: the Sun irradiance change 9 %, GH gases 42 %, and space dust 49 %.
I reckon that there are two reasons for the missing value of the global temperature increase based on the RF value of 2.34 W/m2. The first and the obvious reason is the big error between the IPCC model and the reality. The second reason is that IPCC cannot change the CSP value of 0.5 K/(W/m2). If they would do it, even laymen could notice that the very same CSP value is used in calculating the transient climate sensitivity value (TCS). TCS is calculated using the very same equation and the average TCS = 0.5 K/(W/m2) * 3.7 W/m2 = 1.85 °C. IPCC tries to muddle the water by not informing the exact TCS value in AR5 but it is “very likely” in the range 1 to 2.5 °C meaning the average TCS value of 1.75 °C. Climate sensitivity means the temperature increased caused by the increased CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
IPCC is in a trap concerning the IPCC model predicted global temperature increase and its future temperature forecasts called projections. These projections are the major tool in creating scary images of the climate change. The ongoing El Nino & La Nina will last about to the end 2018. Before the year 2019 nobody can make reliable estimates about the real global temperature trend. We have to wait and see – and to speculate. But the year 2015 shows awful errors in the IPCC’s model. Has the mainstream media noticed this? No reactions. IPCC’s model predicted temperatures seem to be like the new clothes of the king. You do not see them but somehow they are very fine and accurate and reliable.