News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

IPCC Predictions: Then Versus Now

By Glenn Scherer, The Daily Climate

Scientists will tell you: There are no perfect computer models. All are incomplete representations of nature, with uncertainty built into them. But one thing is certain: Several fundamental projections found in U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have consistently underestimated real-world observations, potentially leaving world governments in doubt as to how to guide climate policy.


At the heart of all IPCC projections are "emission scenarios:" low-, mid-, and high-range estimates for future carbon emissions. From these "what if" estimates flow projections for temperature, sea-rise, and more. 

Projection: In 2001, the IPCC offered a range of fossil fuel and industrial emissions trends, from a best-case scenario of 7.7 billion tons of carbon released each year by 2010 to a worst-case scenario of 9.7 billion tons.

  Graphic of emissions scenarios. The IPCC failed to anticipate China's economic growth, or the intense resistance by the United States and other nations to curbing greenhouse gases.
Credit: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Reality: In 2010, global emissions from fossil fuels alone totaled 9.1 billion tons of carbon, according to federal government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory.

Why the miss? While technically within the range, scientists never expected emissions to rise so high so quickly, said IPCC scientist Christopher Field. The IPCC, for instance, failed to anticipate China's economic growth, or resistance by the United States and other nations to curbing greenhouse gases.

"We really haven't explored a world in which the emissions growth rate is as rapid as we have actually seen happen," Fields said.


IPCC models use the emission scenarios discussed above to estimate average global temperature increases by the year 2100.

Projection: The IPCC's 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5°F, with a high probability of 7.2°F.

IPCC emission scenarios underestimated global CO2 emission rates, which means temperature rates were underestimated too. Photo of a climate activist warning of 6ºC warming.
Credit: © Adela Nistora

Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9°F rise.

Why the miss? IPCC emission scenarios underestimated global CO2 emission rates, which means temperature rates were underestimated too. And it could get worse: IPCC projections haven’t included likely feedbacks such as large-scale melting of Arctic permafrost and subsequent release of large quantities of CO2 and methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent, albeit shorter lived, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Arctic Meltdown

Five years ago, the summer retreat of Arctic sea ice wildly outdistanced all 18 IPCC computer models, amazing IPCC scientists. It did so again in 2012.

Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic sea ice pack was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.

Graphic showing Arctic summer ice projections vs. observations. For scientists, it is increasingly clear that the models are under-predicting the rate of sea ice retreat because they are missing key real-world interactions. Credit: Vancouver Observer

Reality: Summer sea ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict a largely ice-free Arctic Ocean in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded – 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average. 

Why the miss? For scientists, it is increasingly clear that the models are under-predicting the rate of sea ice retreat because they are missing key real-world interactions.

"Sea ice modelers have speculated that the 2007 minimum was an aberration… a matter of random variability, noise in the system, that sea ice would recover.… That no longer looks tenable," says Penn State scientist and IPCC contributor Michael Mann. "It is a stunning reminder that uncertainty doesn't always act in our favor."

Ice Sheets

Greenland and Antarctica are melting, even though IPCC said in 1995 that they wouldn’t be. 

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets… over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data… show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003." 

Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.

Why the miss? "After 2001, we began to realize there were complex dynamics at work – ice cracks, lubrication and sliding of ice sheets," that were melting ice sheets quicker, said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. New feedbacks unknown to past IPCC authors have also been found. A 2012 study, for example, showed that the reflectivity of Greenland's ice sheet is decreasing, causing ice to absorb more heat, likely escalating melting. 

Sea-Level Rise 

The fate of the world's coastlines has become a classic example of how the IPCC, when confronted with conflicting science, tends to go silent.

Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.

A "king tide" leaves parts of Sausalito, Calif., flooded in 2010. Disagreement over the impact of ice-sheet melting on sea-level rise has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to omit their influence and thus underestimate sea-level rise  in recent reports, a pattern the panel repeats with other key findings. Credit: Yanna B./flickr.

Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.

Why the miss? IPCC scientists couldn't agree on a value for the contribution melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would add to sea-level rise. So they simply left out the data to reach consensus. Science historian Naomi Oreskes calls this – one of IPCC's biggest underestimates – "consensus by omission." 

Ocean Acidification

To its credit, the IPCC admits to vast climate change unknowns. Ocean acidification is one such impact.

Projection: Unmentioned as a threat in the 1990, 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports. First recognized in 2007, when IPCC projected acidification of between 0.14 and 0.35 pH units by 2100. “While the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented,” said the report, “the progressive acidification of oceans is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent species.”

Reality: The world’s oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans release annually into the atmosphere. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents a stunning 30 percent increase in acidity.

Why the miss? Scientists didn’t have the data. They began studying acidification by the late 1990s, but there weren’t many papers on the topic until mid-2000, missing the submission deadline for IPCC’s 2001 report. Especially alarming are new findings that ocean temperatures and currents are causing parts of the seas to become acidic far faster than expected, threatening oysters and other shellfish. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco has called acidification the "equally evil twin" to global warming.

Thawing Tundra

Some carbon-cycle feedbacks that could vastly amplify climate change — especially a massive release of carbon and methane from thawing permafrost — are extremely hard to model. 

Projection: In 2007, IPCC reported with “high confidence” that “methane emissions from tundra… and permafrost have accelerated in the past two decades, and are likely to accelerate further.” However, the IPCC offered no projections regarding permafrost melt.

Reality: Scientists estimate that the world’s permafrost holds 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon. That worries scientists: The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on earth, and researchers are seeing soil temperatures climb rapidly, too. Some permafrost degradation is already occurring. 

Large-scale tundra wildfires in 2012 added to the concern.

Why the miss? This is controversial science, with some researchers saying the Arctic tundra is stable, others saying it will defrost only over long periods of time, and still more convinced we are on the verge of a tipping point, where the tundra thaws rapidly and catastrophically. A major 2005 study, for instance, warned that the entire top 11 feet of global permafrost could disappear by century's end, with potentially cataclysmic climate impacts. 

The U.N. Environmental Program revealed this week that IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for release starting in September, 2013, will again "not include the potential effects of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate."

Tipping points

The IPCC has been silent on tipping points — non-linear "light switch" moments when the climate system abruptly shifts from one paradigm to another. 

Projection: IPCC has made no projections regarding tipping-point thresholds. 

Reality: The scientific jury is still out as to whether we have reached any climate thresholds – a point of no return for, say, an ice-free Arctic, a Greenland meltdown, the slowing of the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, or permanent changes in large-scale weather patterns like the jet stream, El Niño or monsoons. The trouble with tipping points is they’re hard to spot until you’ve passed one.

Why the miss? Blame the computers: These non-linear events are notoriously hard to model. But with scientists recognizing the sizeable threat tipping points represent, they will be including some projections in the 2013-14 assessment.

Related Content:
Report: IPCC Underestimates Climate Risks
Study Gives New Benchmark for How Much Ice is Melting
Record Amount of Arctic Sea Ice Melted in June
Sea Level Rise Accelerating Faster than Initial Projections

The Daily Climate is a nonprofit news service covering climate change, and a Climate Central content partner.


By DavidNutzuki (Detroit)
on December 11th, 2012

Loosing trust from the same world of science is better than another 26 years of exaggerations and fear mongering.
As planet lovers we need clarity from the scientists before we condemn our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens of their climate change crisis. We all want to trust and believe in something or someone but science denied the dangers of their pesticides for decades and literally made environmental protection necessary in the first place. Why do we want this misery to be real? Wouldn’t real planet lovers be happy, not disappointed that the end of life on the planet as we know it was not the crisis they said it was going to be after all?
Considering that even Occupywallstreet does not mention CO2 in its list of demands (because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations) can we please move on from the exaggeration of crisis? You can’t have a little crisis. And if this is the real ultimate emergency they say it is, we will need the global scientific community to say in one voice clearly that this comet hit will happen, not another 26 years of might happen. How close to the edge of no return will they take us before it’s too late to say a crisis “WILL” happen? The IPCC has never said a crisis will happen without being smothered in “maybe” and “likely” and “possibly”. Never has science said a crisis will happen, only might.
History will call this CO2 madness the new Reefer Madness.

Reply to this comment

By SecularAnimist
on December 12th, 2012

Please be aware that the incoherent, rambling, nonsensical comment by “DavidNutzuki”, posted here on 12/11/2012, is spam.  That identical text has been repeatedly copied and pasted as a comment on numerous blogs where global warming is discussed, each time with a different name given as the “author”.

Reply to this comment

By Carbonicus (Atlanta, GA 30328)
on December 14th, 2012

This documents the departure between IPCC predictions and actual temperatures. Actual temps are NOT running higher than they’re predictions, they’re LOWER.
Note that the red line IPCC prediction is the 2 degree C by 2100. If one were to plot the more extreme predictions (your 6.3 - 13.3 F), the departure between IPCC prediction and actual temp would be even greater.

Documentation sea level rise is a fraction of what you’ve claimed here. It’s no more than 2mm/year and is NOT increasing.

Yes, emissions are up and atmospheric CO2 levels are up to 390 ppm. So what? Unless and until you can positively identify and quantify human attribution, and prove that the current level (or higher) is actually dangerous (and not according to more failed computer models), higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are good for the biosphere, not bad.

Ocean “acidification”. Is this the name you give to an alkaline that is slightly less alkaline than 100 or 1,000 years ago? You convey an image of oceans of bubbling acid. You don’t bother to even inform your readers that the world’s oceans are not “acidic” (i.e. below 7.0 on the pH scale) they’re ALKALINE.  You scare them with a “30% increase in ‘acidity’” without bothering to mention that even after this .1 change on the pH scale, the oceans are still ALKALINE (nor do you mention that they contain 63 times more dissloved CO2 than the atmosphere).

Thawing tundra and ice sheets?  Again, until there is positive, quantifiable attribution, anything suggesting that human emissions of CO2/GHG’s from burning fossil fuels is responsible for either is pure political science speculation.

You’ve got Heidi Cullen and a bunch of eco-journalists, and a couple of scientists as board members, at least one of whom is in the tank for AGW Thermageddon fear mongering.

How long do you think you can keep this up in the face of empirical evidence (e.g. no statisically significant warming in 16 years, and NOAA saying that 15 years would be enough to prove your models wrong)?

You will ultimately be proven as partisan pseudo-science political advocates.  Svensmark and Christy and Spencer and others will end up as Copernicus and Galileo and you will end up as the Catholic church (who learned they were right and the earth was NOT the center of the universe, despite their political “consensus”).  Remember, Carbonicus warned you this was going to happen to you long before you became laughingstocks. 

Spin bordering on irresponsible lies. Suit yourself. Mother nature doesn’t care about your bullying and misinformation. She’ll be your ultimate arbiter, like she has for the last 16 years.

Good luck. You’re going to need it.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.