An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’


IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).

IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).

About these ads
About these ads
Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4

  1. Patrick B says:

    I have not had time to really study the underlying graph yet, so I apologize if the answer is obvious – The various predictions assumed certain CO2 levels, correct? I thought I read that the actual CO2 levels have risen even faster than predicted, true? If so, are these predictions as graphed still “accurate” representations or would they actually show even steeper lines if adjusted for actual CO2 levels?

  2. RACookPE1978 says:

    A writer earlier recommended using, not this figure, but one he had edited showing each prediction STARTING at the year it was made. the difference is amazing in impact and in its ability to highlight how the IPCC “draws lines” but has a clear lack-of-matching-the-real world!

  3. GW was a scam from the start.

  4. Jameel Ahmad Khan says:

    Why does the graph start in 1990? No prizes for guessing (It shows a warming trend for this period as against cooling trend over centuries !) .

  5. Brian H says:

    Even more egregiously, most of the warming occurred in ONE YEAR! 1997. That has no possible rationale within the IPCC framework.

  6. Rob Shaw says:

    There are 6 things the ipcc have got wrong. 1 they do not factor in fossil fuel exhaustion. 2 they do not recognise obvious natural temp oscillations like the PDO. 3 they do not properly allow for extra evaportive cooling from rainfall and its effect on climate sensitivity. 4 waste heat is very significant in past warming of densely populated high energy using countries such as much of Europe. 5 the oceans are a vaste heat sink which will take several hundred years to warm 1degree at present heating rates. 6. They do not take account of the effect of solar output on cosmic rays.
    It is not surprising that their forecasts are way too high

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s