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?
RACookPE1978
Editor
December 19, 2012 5:40 pm
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!
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 !) .
Brian H
December 24, 2012 6:59 pm
Even more egregiously, most of the warming occurred in ONE YEAR! 1997. That has no possible rationale within the IPCC framework.
Rob Shaw
March 21, 2013 2:50 pm
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
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?
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!
GW was a scam from the start.
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 !) .
Even more egregiously, most of the warming occurred in ONE YEAR! 1997. That has no possible rationale within the IPCC framework.
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