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 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) 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.
Anthony
The graph would look great on a sweat shirt ( much too cold for a t shirt) and provide a great present whilst acting as a useful reminder of what the graph looked like prior to being amended in the final version of AR5
Tonyb
This looks to be very interesting. However, I have noted that there are some questions about whether the issue of solar forcing has been correctly interpreted:
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/ipcc-ar5-not-acknowledging.html
In light of this, I hope that commentary on AR5 will proceed cautiously, and within the context of the overall presentation in the report. However, I look forward to the essay, Anthony.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/the-ipcc-ar5-leak-why-do-the-ipcc-object/
The global temp graph looks like HadCru, not GisTemp? Hansen is at odds with the IPCC?
I definitely see the 11-year solar cycles being reflected in the observed temps: 1992-2003 (consistent rise) 2001-2012 (flat-line) and 2010+ (beginning of drop).
Where have I seen that graph before? Hmm…
Oh yes, Spring skiing at Whistler will be a thing of the past!
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/wolframalpha-20120118164548020.jpg
What we are seeing is the defeat of a religion. Observations trump theory every time.
They are now at the corner of the room they painted. It should be over soon, again. 🙂
Re Bill Illis says @ur momisugly December 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Surely that should be fervor? No uncertainty there.
O dear Mr Watts, I do trust you are not going to descend into exploring the many shades of grey previously explored by the elite?
Another caption for the chart: “Onward and Oopward”
This graph reminds me that
“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
I don’t have to vote, since I depend on folks who are a lot smarter than I to determine what to think.
For example, these guys…
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/have-climate-change-projections-come-true
Obviously, the brilliant climate scientists are spon-on, here and always.
You guys just have to account for the proper “adjustments”.
You know, science advances and is self-correcting…as in, when myself is wrong, I corrects myself and then I claims myself was right all along.
tango says:
December 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm
the poll, I had a brain explosion and voted for above model we all know the right answer its below. I hang my head in shame i should enter politics
————
No way. You already failed the number one test……….
Never admit a mistake! Lie. Lie. Lie
cn
From the chart, it is now obvious why the super storm that hit the east coast this year was so devastating and out of the norm. We should feel lucky that we have not had one of those each of the last 15 years.
I posted a modified version of Fig. 1.4 that removes the gray bars and removes the “hindcasts” so that all bands start at their publication date to show the actual IPCC predictions:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipcc_predicts.html
Thanks
JK
The original caption is too long, and yet at the same time fails to convey enough information. I suggest a caption contest. My entries are:
“You Want To Spend Six Trillion On What?”
and
“Consensus of Dunces”
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets which was not shown.
This is followed by the 2011 value which is slightly lower in all cases.
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for October at 0.518, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.526 + 0.531 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.516 + 0.518)/10 = 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach, but 2012 will be slightly warmer than 2011.
I learn as much from what is not said by the warmists as I do from the skeptics at these times. And this time is a doozy
Further to my last comment about the solar forcing question, this is from New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html
“Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. “They’re misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say,” says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.
Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.”
I suggest an urgent review of this question, as it is potentially a distraction from your ‘bombshell’ and the ‘dirty weather’ question:
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/the-ipcc-ar5-leak-why-do-the-ipcc-object/#comments
A lot of people say things like – the IPCC models are failing to reproduce the temperature – and ascribe various reasons for this.
Perhaps some one should tell them the Sun doesn’t actually shine 24 hours a day at one quarter power.
Perhaps some one should tell them that the temperature response of that part of the Earth in actual sunlight at four times the averaged “insolation” is significantly more than minus 18 C.
Perhaps some one should tell them that they can only exclude the Sun’s insolation if they accurately calculate the maximum “blackbody” temperature response of that part of the Earth which is actually receiving insolation – which of course they haven’t because they believe the Sun shines 24 hours a day at one quarter power.
Perhaps some one should tell them that the data from the Moon indicates the Sun CAN heat to more than minus 18 C and that it takes a long time for temperatures to decrease when radiating to space is the only cooling method.
Perhaps some one should tell them that their science is BS!!
By “them” I meant the IPCC – may not be clear in above post.
Jolly hockey sticks chaps! It’s worse than we thought. Temperatures are as flat as a pancake.
How much did we spend based on those forecasts? Oops.
These people are profoundly insane.
No fraud button in the poll. So why vote? I sure couldn’t bring myself to vote for anything ‘in relation’ to IPCC falsehoods.
The divergence between the predicted and observed curves will become even more pronounced as the observed curve starts to dip and head to 0.2C BY 2030. If IPCC does not acknowledge that they have made a serious error both in science and temperature forecast, the validity of their entire report will be suspect with such a glaring error. The sooner they acknowledge their mistake the sooner meaningful dialogue and research can star which involves the sun in a major way
I think it’s worth asking the question:
Reuters report on the draft release…
“LONDON (Reuters) – International climate scientists are more certain than ever that humans are responsible for global warming, rising sea levels and extreme weather events, according to a leaked draft report by an influential panel of experts.”
Sorry, no chance of winning this in the media. Glaciers in NY are needed.