The real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell – plus a poll

Take a look at Figure 1.4 from the AR5 draft (shown below). The gray bars in Fig 1.4 are irrelevant (because they flubbed the definition of them), the colored bands are the ones that matter because they provide bounds for all current and previous IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4.

Look for the surprise in the graph. 


Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares  (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at; NOAA (updated from  Smith et al., 2008; data available at; and the UK Hadley  Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at reanalyses). Whiskers  indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and  internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

So let’s see how readers see this figure – remember ignore the gray bands as they aren’t part of the model scenarios.

I’ll have a follow up with the results later, plus an essay on what else was found in the IPCC AR5 draft report related to this.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4
And the upcoming forecast, FUBAR.


I am amazed that ipcc have included this. But of course it is only in the draft. There is plenty of time for them to “adjust” the data and have a more “model friendly” graph in the final submission.


The “committed warming” which was predicted by the AR4 is apparent on the graph. /sarc off

Olaf Koenders

It appears they now have to be HONEST? Oh the horror.. I wonder how many billions they scoffed down to give us this conclusion? They can’t hide anymore.


when you see experimental data error bars larger than the error bars in the models, you should know that something it is really, really wrong.

Sun Spot

Observations don’t match any of the IPCC model forecasts !! Plus the graph shows no observed warming for the last 15 years.


Will this graph be in the summary for policy makers?


No noble hockey-sticks?

Barry L.

What I find surprising it that from 2000 to 2012, the Observed temperature trend is negative, where the models all predict a positive trend.
Even more surprising is that the latest temperature from 2012 is below all of the model forecasts.

If you look carefully you will find the curve from 1990 first going up an then down. We will continue to fall. Global cooling is here7

Bryan A

How does the to date 2012 data compare? The two blips appear to represent the 2011 data without the error bar range added. The same error bar range added to the 2011 data would throw the top of the bar to just within the bottom of the model range. but if 2012 is lower still, then a further cooling trend might be indicated


Seems SAR is about the only report even bothering to care about.
FAR is a joke its margins are massive.
TAR and 4th both have huge margins and of course at best the data is at the very very bottom of the huge margin.
Wasn’t SAR the report where they walked back a good bit from FAR and put alot more natural effects into the argument?
I really don’t see how they can post this in the final draft… it completely destroys 3 of the 4 reports and makes the “new” research look worse then the “old” research.

If you look carefully you will find the curve from 1992 first going up an then down. We will continue to fall. Global cooling is here.

Gary Pearse

With the benefit of hindsight, 5 years ago (AR4) and 10 years of flat trend at 0.4, they are projecting a rise to from 0.6 to 0.95! by 2015. Since 2007 to 2012, they essentially have remained flat and below the projected “red”. The observed looks like there has been no statistical warming since 1995 and this despite the Hansen temperature record step-up “forcing” done to break the 1930s temp records. No wonder there is so much gnashing of teeth, loss of sleep and nastiness among the warmaratti.

Roy UK

16 votes (compared to 196) see “In the middle of the model scenario ranges” or above??? Looks like the warmunists don’t like what they see.
Not one of the warmunists see what I can see? Admittedly I am not a scientist, and I am sure I must be missing something that must be obvious to these people. Please tell me what I am missing.
But they quote the IPCC incessantly, and now they are going to have to cope with this bombshell. My guess is they will be over here in their droves getting paid 10c a pop to vote on the poll. And maybe 20c to post their scientific explanation as to why my eyes are wrong.
PS I did not get paid my 20c from “Big Oil” for posting this comment.


Since the question is what do the readers think of this, I’ll give my interpretation — pointing out the obvious maybe.
I guess the observed is the global temperature derived from the surface temperature record. I’m not certain of the term “whiskers”, but I think it refers to confidence interval “bars” on the observations. The caption uses the term “range” and I think that means any observed value that falls outside of the colored bands cannot be accounted for by a particular model. Based on this, the graph says that all models are severely overpredicting the observed, and that many of the observed represent “impossible” values for the models.
Those conclusions are counter to the entire premise of the IPCC, so there must be something I’m not getting.
First post for a long time reader. Great web site.


kwik says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm
No noble hockey-sticks?
I see a hockey stick but it is not going up… the handle us going flat on the right…

Dell from Michigan

So the actual temps have been far lower that the model projections…..
Sounds to me like Hansen, Mann, Gore, et al, haven’t added enough “adjustment” yet???
Or perhaps the lack of NHL hockey this year has caused a dramatic drop in the hockey stick????


But…But…2012 is the hottest year EVAH!…
*whisper* in the U.S. (well some states anyway…)

R. de Haan

I’ll have Burt Rutan have a look at it (LOL)

David, UK

It doesn’t take a genius to see at a glance that most of the observations are either within the lower grey band or within the lower model estimates.
So WTF were eleven voters (at the time of this comment) actually seeing when they voted for “Above the model scenario ranges?” Duh? Any one of the eleven care to comment?

Theo Goodwin

It is a good thing that Rawls shared the report. The graph above would never have made it into that report. Consensus, anyone?


R. de Haan says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“I’ll have Burt Rutan have a look at it (LOL)”
Let Gjaever, Moerner and the rest of the realists have a look too! (Double LOL!!!)

Bruce Cobb

Imagine the cognitive dissonance this graph must create in the Warmist mind. They will have “explanations” for it of course: “Aerosols from increased industry in China, for example, are increasing planetary albedo, and the deep oceans are concealing some of the warmth”, is what they may claim. “This lull in the warming is only temporary”, they’ll assure themselves. Then, they will go full-bore into their favorite litany of “ice caps melting, storms getting more severe, more floods, droughts, fires, and the piece de resistance, the mother of all “proofs” we are now suffering the catastrophic effects of manmade warming, Sandy.

The relationship had between infringements upon the natural water vapor cycle (supported by Tsunami debris affect upon Arctic Sea Ice changes) and near surface temperature feedbacks has clearly not been adequately investigated (Atmospheric Drying/ Ocean surface energy displacement >700meters). …Atmospheric Rivers increase ice sheets and their storage process rates for heavier atmospheric gases….. Are the idiots bullying the rest with a system wide micro-economic leach that requires ignoring actual causality? …All I have is a kite, but my answer is Yes they are.
Ocean originating ash fall disruption of water vapor cycle during Ice Age events would explain rapid desertification……

Bill Illis

IPCC working group vote in January 2013 – “Be it recommended that this graph not be shown and a whole bunch of other made-up ones with a line going up be shown in its place” – 11 vote Yes; 1 Abstention and 2 votes No – therefore IPCC working group votes 110% in favor.

mark wagner

10 of the 22 years have observed temps lower than any/all of the models. huh.

David L. Hagen

1) Temperature plateau
IPCC shows NO warming for 15 years from 1997 to 2012.
2) “ANNUAL temperature change” of ~ 0.35 C/YEAR = 3.5C/decade!!!
IPCC states as “Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares “.
i.e. a ROFLOL editing error only 1700% too high. It should probably read “temperature difference averaged annually.”
3) Global cooling
IPCC shows a massive cooling of ~ -0.18 C from 1990 to 1992 or -0.9 Deg C/decade for the SAR scenario design. i.e. > -450% BELOW the IPCC’s mean of model trends of +0.2 C/decade.
4) Ignoring climate persistence
The conventional standard deviation of uncertainties shown (gray) is probably only half of the total Hurst – Kolmogorov Standard Deviation measured in the ice cores. See
Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, Vienna, EGU2010-14816, European Geosciences Union, 2010. Presentation slide 10.

The IPCC models are failing to reproduce the temperature (despte the 2-sigma error bars) because are severely failing to reproduce the large natural multidecadal oscillations that are likely astronomically induced. As shown in my paper.
The astronomical based model I propose agrees far better with the temperature:
And properly reconstructs the temperature before 2000!
Because my paper is published and peer reviewed, and the IPCC is supposed to take into account all scientific literature, not just the AGW literature, may somebody write them and ask them to add a figure with my model just in case it may work better that their GCMs?


Far, a long long way to run,
Tar, a needle pulling thread,
Sar, a
damn, can’t make it work

Peter Miller

This is definitely an inconvenient chart which will be omitted from the final homogenised version, as it clearly demonstrates the pointlessness of the IPCC.


Oh the weather outside is frightful, 
But the fire is so delightful,
And since we’ve no place to go,
Let It Rain! Let It Rain! Let It Rain!
with apologies to Sammy Cahn & Jule Styne 1945

David L. Hagen

5) Actual 2008 & 2011 temperatures BELOW/OUTSIDE the uncertainty ranges of AR4.
I.e. the AR4 model projections are trending way too hot relative to actual global temperature evidence. This very likely shows large unaccounted for Type B standard uncertainty.
Compare Nicola Scafetta’s 2012 model which is now predicting far better temperature trends from 2000 than IPCC AR4. At the bottom of the page see Scafetta’s expanded graph since 2000 showing IPCC’s rapidly rising global warming vs Scafetta’s harmonic projection compared to actual temperatures updated monthly.


With this alignment, all they need to do is to tone the prediction down a bit to about values of SAR – and they’re good again for about next five years unless we get really significant cooling.


Obviously the observed anomolies need severely beaten with a hockey stick to make them conform to the wack job models. My apologies to other wack jobs out there, but and a very big but, you are not in the same league as these so called “scientists”. Thankyou all for my little rant. I for one have had enough of these rentseekers.

Latimer Alder

The problem with them not now showing the graph in the final report is that they will need to have a semi-plausible scientific reason for doing so. Enough people have seen the draft to make a big noise about it.
It is not obvious what that the reason they could advance might be.

Beta Blocker

Regardless of what the actual trend line for observed temperatures might indicate upon casual examination of this graph, as long as the upper values of the measurement error bars generally fall within the lower boundary of the aggregated four-model prediction zone — i.e., the zone defined within the colored areas of the graph, ignoring the portion which is gray — the claim will be made that “the climate model predictions have been verified in all major respects.”

Jeff Norman

It appears the error bars on the “measured” temperatures are larger than the range of modelled results.

Chris B

Oddly the models seem to predict a greater rise in temperature just at the time the temperature actually stopped rising and started gradually dropping. Nostradamus was better.

Michael Schaefer

Well, as I see it, there’s a flat line in the observed global trends from 2000 on – like in “flatline”.
May we call the IPCC-members Flatliners now? Please!

Martin C

Hmmmm, If the colors are for model forecasts, what did they put in the AR4 model that caused the 1992 dip, when SAR and TAR DONT have that (obviously FAR couldn’t, because it was prior to 1992).
Looks to me like Mt. Pinatubo cooling. So then that wouldn’t be MODEL FORECAST, that would be OBSERVED DATA. And why then wouldn’t the AR4 band dip, or at least, stay level, from about 2000 to 2007, to coincide with the OBSERVED data?
Is there an estimate, model or otherwise, for future temps, in AR5? Shouldn’t there be . . ?

Michael Schaefer

David, UK says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:55 pm
David, there’s nothing a reasonable amount of mind-altering substances can’t fix.
Like the Irish say: “Reality is a misperception caused by lack of alcohol!”
Air do shlàinte!

David L. Hagen

6) The 2011 data is missing the “whisker” error bounds.
7) The term “bias” for Type B standard uncertainty is NOT standard terminology and is recommended against by NIST

Robert M

And that chart is with ADJUSTED data. They are cheating and still losing. I wonder how that makes them feel.
Of course the money keeps rolling in, that must be comforting for them.

Tim Clark

“Barry L. says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm
What I find surprising it that from 2000 to 2012, the Observed temperature trend is negative, where the models all predict a positive trend.
Even more surprising is that the latest temperature from 2012 is below all of the model forecasts.”
More importantly, the latest temperature is even below the 2 sigma error bands of all the model forecasts.
It’s worse than we thought!!!!!!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.


We are cooling, folks; for how long neither kim nor the IPCC knows.


Steven Goddard has many posts demonstrating that James Hansen has changed the temperature data in recent publications from the ones he published before 2000.
The “revised” versions eliminate the previous record years of the 1930s US – the dust bowl years – in favour of the current period.
“What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.”
Factor that, plus an urban heat island effect into the above graph and the models are even further out compared to “real” data before adjustment which reduces the past and increases the present.
I also wonder how many “cool” monitoring stations simply ceased supplying data when the Soviet Union collapsed and if that had any impact on global averages.
They still have a long way to go before honesty prevails.

Lawrie Ayres

Imagine if those beyond reproach media outlets put this graph on their front pages and lead stories. Rioting in the streets perhaps? More likely discussion by “experts” (read warmist robots) explaining it’s only the draft prepared by a low ranking junior who has now been counselled.


Play time is over.
The world economy has tanked.
Nobody can afford the “green” vision anymore.
Give it up, history might be kinder.

let me get this straight. somebody wants me to look at draft chart that has an error in it
ignore the error and focus on a different part of the chart that may or may not be accurate.