Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Lessons From Past Predictions: Ridley vs. IPCC and Hansen

Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

On his Deltoid blog, Tim Lambert recently dusted off an old global warming prediction made by Matt Ridley in 1993.

"Global warming, too, has shot its bolt, now that the scientific consensus has settled down on about a degree of temperature increase over a century - that is, little more than has taken place in the past century."

Note that Ridley's characterization of the scientific consensus on global warming in 1993 was not remotely accurate.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the consensus position of climate scientists, issued a Supplementary Report in 1992 stating,

"The range of values for climate sensitivity reported in 1990 Assessment, and reaffirmed in this Supplement, was 1.5 to 4.5°C, with a best estimate ... of 2.5°C"

In his response to Lambert's post, Ridley provided the full text of his 1993 article.  Reading the article may produce another Ridley déjà vu moment, because the content is very similar to Ridley's 2012 article in WIRED magazine, basically claiming that all environmental concerns, including global warming, are nothing more than alarmist hype.  Apparently Ridley's thinking has not evolved over the past two decades.

Lambert's analysis of Ridley's 1°C warming prediction was unfair in its graphical depiction, placing its starting point in line with the temperature in 1993, which was a low point due to the cooling influence of the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.  Figure 1 below is a fairer depiction of his prediction.  Whether Lambert's critique of Ridley was fair, mentioning "how wrong his prediction was so far", is another question which we will examine in this post.

The devil is in the details - does Ridley's prediction assume a linear or accelerating warming trend over the next century, for example?  He does not specify, though in his response to Lambert, Ridley treats his prediction as a linear one.

IPCC and Hansen vs. Ridley

However, Ridley also proceeded to shoot himself in the foot by claiming that unlike his prediction, those made by the IPCC and James Hansen "HAVE failed".  In reality, even allowing Ridley the most generous assumption of a predicted linear warming trend, most of the warming projections by both the IPCC and Hansen have been far more accurate than his own (Figure 1, Table 1).


Figure 1: Average global surface temperature (average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4; gray and red), same data with solar, volcanic and El Niño Southern Oscillation influences statistically removed by the Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) methodology (black and red), and various temperature predictions (dashed).  Each prediction has been baselined using the 5-year running average at 1990, 1993, or 2000, as applicable to each prediction.

Table 1: Predicted global surface warming trend for 1990, 1993, or 2000 through 2012, accounting for actual greenhouse gas emissions, and the difference from the underlying observed trend of approximately 0.16°C/decade

Predictor Predicted Trend (°C/decade) Difference from Underlying Observed Trend
IPCC FAR 0.20 25%
IPCC SAR 0.14 -12%
IPCC TAR 0.16 0%
IPCC AR4 0.18 12%
Hansen '81 0.15 -6%
Hansen '88 0.28 75%
Ridley 0.10 -38%

The analyses here of warming predictions made by the IPCC and Hansen take the actual observed greenhouse gas emissions over the past two decades into account.  For details about how this was done, click the links in the first column of Table 1.

The third column of Table 1 compares the predictions to the underlying observed global surface warming trend of 0.16–0.17°C per decade over the timeframe in question, when removing the short-term influences of the unpredictable effects of volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (using methods described by Kevin C and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011).

As this column shows, all of the predictions Ridley claims "HAVE failed" were more accurate than his own, with the exception of Hansen (1988).  However, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in Hansen's 1988 model was 4.2°C global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  Hansen and his climate scientist colleagues now agree that equilibrium climate sensitivity is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2, similar to the sensitivity of the climate models used in Hansen (1981) and the IPCC TAR and AR4, which also had amongst the most accurate predictions.  Ridley on the contrary is sticking behind his rather inaccurate prediction.

Linear Assumption is Overly Generous to Ridley

Additionally, as noted above, we were very generous to allow Ridley a linear 0.1°C per decade prediction.  In reality, under all but the most aggressive realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, CO2 concentations will continue to increase at an accelerating rate throughout most of the 21st century (Figure 2).


Figure 2: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations as observed at Mauna Loa from 1958 to 2008 (black dashed line) and projected under six IPCC emission scenarios (solid coloured lines). (IPCC Data Distribution Centre)

But of course by constantly writing articles claiming that global warming is nothing to worry about, Ridley is helping to fuel efforts to ensure that we continue with business-as-usual emissions, which are currently on track with Scenario A2 (yellow in Figures 2 and 3).

IEA vs. SRES 2011

Figure 3: IEA fossil fuel CO2 emissions estimates vs. IPCC SRES emissions scenarios.

If Ridley is correct that climate sensitivity is relatively low (he believes it's around half the consensus most likely value, at 1.5°C warming for doubled CO2), then an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 750 ppm in 2100 would commit us to about 2.1°C of eventual warming over pre-industrial temperatures, and approximately 1°C of that surface warming would occur over the century in question. 

However, to reach 750 ppm by 2100, CO2 emissions and global warming would have to accelerate over the 21st century, and in that case we would only expect to see about 0.14°C warming total between 1993 and 2012 (0.07°C per decade).  So if we are less generous to Ridley and account for a realistic emissions scenario, his prediction of 1°C warming over the next century only includes 0.07°C per decade for 1993–2012, which is too low by 56%.

Lesson From These Predictions: Don't Mess with IPCC

As we have now shown several times, the IPCC surface temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate (although they have under-predicted many other climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice extent decline and sea level rise).  Ridley would have been wise to simply argue that a linear 0.1°C warming prediction is not terribly wrong yet, rather than trying to incorrectly claim that his prediction has proven more accurate than those made by the IPCC and James Hansen.  In reality, his is not even close to the accuracy of the IPCC.

Ridley's prediction has fared better than Hansen's 1988 model (but much worse than Hansen's 1981 model); however, Hansen no longer believes his 1988 model was accurate, whereas Ridley continues to stand behind his lowball 1993 prediction.  Failing to learn from his past mistakes is a common thread in Ridley's writings, as he still wrongly attacks all environmental concerns as "alarmism", and still fails to account for any but the best case scenario, which helped cause his bank to fail and require a government bailout.  As noted above, his thought process never seems to evolve beyond its original misconceptions.

Ridley claims those made by the IPCC and James Hansen "HAVE failed", but all the IPCC predictions have been much more accurate that Ridley's. The only one that has performed worse was Hansen's 1988 model because of a too-high climate model sensitivity, something that Hansen acknowledges and corrected in later versions of his model.  This is a tacit admission by Ridley that his prediction has failed, so perhaps Lambert was not too harsh in his judgment of Ridley after all.  A 50+% error is certainly not a performance worth bragging about.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 21:

  1. At least Ridley predicts warming...
    0 0
  2. I think the contrast between Hansen's re-assessment of his 1988 projections vs. Ridley's doubling down on his 1993 projections makes plain the difference between scientific and pseudo-scientific thinking. (If anyone cares to quote-mine the above, let me also note that the contrast makes plain that it is Ridley who is engaged in the pseudo-scientific thinking here.)
    0 0
  3. Ridley is not sceptical, he's heels-in-the-mud entrenched. Completely unwilling to consider evidence, he clearly exhibits the ideological zeal of which he accuses others. Is he an example of psychological projection?
    0 0
  4. John Brookes @1 - yes, Ridley is one of those "lukewarmers" who's not in total denial, but also advocates for climate inaction because he doesn't believe AGW is a problem. From a practical standpoint for those trying to solve this problem, it's really not any better. Composer @2 and John Russell @3 - yes, a good scientist will admit when his prior conceptions were wrong. Ridley apparently will not (this is also a problem for some other contrarians like Richard Lindzen).
    0 0
  5. Ridley is yet anbother one of those individuals whose ramblings deserve no attention whatsoever from the ones who can think, as shown above. It is really unfortunate that so many charlatans can gather so much attention these days. It seems to me there were times when the average ability of the population for critical thinking was much higher.
    0 0
  6. Would it seem presumptive for climate scientists to criticize how the finance sector makes its predictions? If so, then why is the reverse so routinely accepted? We're in the middle of Great Depression II, which was led by the finance sector, which obviously misinvested large sums of 'money' it didn't really have. Beside formal government bailouts, Central Bankers are buying bank T-bills with made up money in the vain hope these financial wizards still know how to make proper investments in the stock market, which will 'trickle down' to the rest of the economy. That's the background for these same wizards claiming to school climate science about its conclusions, while their flagship news-magazines confidently claim that 'Fossil Fuels Green the Planet'. I'm going to have to reread 'Alice in Wonderland' and pay more attention this time.
    0 0
  7. Philippe Chantreau @ 5, the average ability of the population for critical thinking is probably about as it always was. The problem is that we have mass media shaping public perceptions and the mass media is not there to give consumers accurate, or fair, reporting of issues. There is no profit in truth, it seems.
    0 0
  8. Philippe, Doug: Then again, some people think that "critical thinking" is bad... vis-a-vis the GOP in Texas: Texas GOP Rejects Critical Thinking Skills Can't have those innocent kids thinking for themselves, can we? Another more recent example from the same state [of mind]: Teaching Bible as Fact
    0 0
  9. IEHO it would be best to change "but they have almost all been far more accurate than his own" to "all the IPCC predictions have been much more accurate that Ridley's. The only one that has been worse was Hansen's 1988 model because of an assumption of a too high climate sensitivity, something that Hansen acknowledges and corrected in later versions of his model. Eli might add the later GISS model projections to the list, e.g. 1998.
    0 0
  10. It would appear that Ridley has been at it again this time using the GWPF to promote his propaganda, or is it the other way around, H/T Russell Seitz at Eli's: A Lukewarmers Ten Tests, PDF, from GWPF.
    0 0
  11. Lionel @ 10, it looks as though they have had second thoughts: when I click on your link, I get the dreaded 404 "Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." Well, I was looking for intelligent analysis of scientific research, so I suppose they are right in saying "Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." "8-)
    0 0
  12. It looks like the GWPF have repositioned this document: There is a link on their home page along with a claim that 'James Hansen Turns Climate Sceptic' which turns out to be a pastiche of comment about that recent study examined here with the article 'Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome'. The article was originally on the The Daily Caller as Norway climate study sparks debate over global warming urgency with plenty of spin from Pat Michaels. The article does not imply that Hansen is newly sceptical about climate change as the GWPF head suggests.
    0 0
  13. #11 For the avoidance of any doubt, Doug, the Matt Ridley document is here:
    0 0
  14. Ridley's new list of '10 tests' is pretty horrid, full of denialist blog-based misinformation. We'll address it in a future blog post.
    0 0
  15. Martin Lack @ 13, following that link, I get "ERROR 403: Forbidden". It seems my computer is the common denominator, as others have obviously not had the problems I am having accessing this document. Sigh.
    0 0
  16. Doug @15 - you're not missing anything good. But there will be a link in the blog post we do on the list.
    0 0
  17. dana1981 @ 16, Daniel Bailey emailed the Ridley GWPF PDF to me - thanks, Daniel. What a crock! I am an interested spectator of average intelligence, not a scientist, but even I could debunk most of what the document contains. The front cover lists the GWPF Board of Trustees and Academic Advisory Council: why am I not surprised at the rubbish they advocate?
    0 0
  18. It's very hard to read that GWPF PDF without getting very angry at the blatant distortions and misrepresentations. I also can't help noticing two things: 1. The description of "Dr Matt Ridley" on page 1 and his own description of his expertise stand in stark contrast to the kindergarten-level logical fallacies and misunderstandings of the science. 2. The "Academic Advisory Council" is full of important-sounding people (at least to those who are unfamiliar with its members), yet practically all of his references are to dubious blog postings rather than any peer-reviewed scientific papers that his esteemed colleagues might have written. For example, what's the point of that Advisory Council if he's going to rely on prematurely reported, significantly flawed and unpublished papers by ex-TV weathermen to prove his point?
    0 0
  19. The "Academic Advisory Council" is full of important-sounding people
    It is a blatant appeal to authority, based on the titles and academic qualifications of the members of the Council. The same, tired old horses getting flogged by the same, tired old contrarians. The trouble is, one has to have had some exposure to the topic to be able to spot the usual suspects in such a line-up.
    0 0
  20. #18/19 JasonB and DougH:


    You may be interested to read one or all of the following:

    My post about the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council:

    My posts about the Bishop of Chester (on its Board of Trustees):

    0 0
  21. Worryingly, Ridley is also on the advisory council of Sense About Science (, along with at least one other climate denier (Tony Trewavas).  Might explain why SAS has been seems to have been very quiet about climate disinformation.    

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us