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.
Fifteen years (soon sixteen) without warming has left pie on the face of the climate modelers. They hope desperately for a resumption of warming but it will not happen for a decade or more, if at all. It is now getting comical. The true believers are starting to spit and snarl about “stolen documents” and “interfering with science”. Makes great music.
We need this fixed, fixed now!!! It MUST be MORE EMPHATIC and HOTTER!!!!
Thus will be the Hysteric Annual Report… and the Definitely Excessive extension to it and then the HOTTER Annual report… thus leading to the….
HAR DE HAR HAR!!!
How noble to cherry-pick the start date to show the predictions in the poorest possible light. They should align the bands at 1992-and-a-half so the observations sit more nicely within the coloured stripes.
clipe says:
December 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Where have I seen that graph before? Hmm…
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17840119-post4.html
I find it hard to choose one of those 3. I would say generally at the lower end of the model ranges.
Enter the
LandscheidtEddy [sorry, it has already been decided by the solar astronomy community -mod] Minimum and two newly cold decadal cycles in play by 2020; It should be interesting to see how that plays out.Computer models on climate? anyone recall the true saying GI =GO Garbage in garbage out.
Mosh is seemingly getting worse with these drive by unsubstantiated remarks. Come on Steve,what are you really trying to say? Maybe you want to be more warmist in your attitude – but at least retain some scientific integrity! Your comment is nothing more than handwaving snark IMHO……
Anthony says, ” Mosher will have to wait for the final “sanitized” report, since he’s now gone from lukewarmer to warmer positions on many things.” Yes, he folded like a cheap camera. Notice his transition from cowardly lukewarmer status to full blown warmista ever since the election. He’s looking for something.
Go Home says:
December 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm
“Sorry, no chance of winning this in the media. Glaciers in NY are needed.”
Couldn’t agree more. When so many Homo sapiens fail such a simple intelligence test as this most obviously is, then you start to question the sagacity of giving ourselves the name “wise one”. I shake my head at the temerity of all the “parrots”, those that can repeat a thing without ever understanding it.
It is what has hardened me into being in this for the genus now. Not the species.
To get to this place you need but ponder:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.
state Trauth, et al (2009) in Quaternary Science Reviews (28 (2009) 399–411).
In terms of “being in it for the genus”, one does tend to wonder if letting such zealots have their way might actually be the correct thing to do……
You do see all the irony’s here, don’t you?
Yeah, go ahead, strip all the climate security blanket you want from the half-precession cycle (1/2P) old late Holocene atmosphere. It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature. Would you really want to be guilty of impeding the onset of the next ~90ky ice age? Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about 1/2P……..
By so doing, those that the obvious eludes may find themselves committed to sustainability, their own…..
Not that the heathen devil gas would be to blame. It takes thousands of years for CO2 levels to begin dropping during and after a LEAP into a glacial.
So be ever thoughtful of both facts and predictions before leaping to a conclusion. It was in fact a LEAP that terminated the last interglacial, the cold Late Eemian Aridity Pulse which lasted 468 years and ended with a precipitous drop into the Wisconsin ice age. And yes, we were indeed there. We had been on the stage as our stone-age selves about the same length of time during that interglacial that our civilizations have been during this one.
Sirocko, et al, 2005, A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature03905, pp 833-836:
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
There just isn’t anything like having such a natural fly land in your climate change soup.
Thanks Alec!
Come on Kev-in-UK… I really want to hear what he has to say. Not that I disagree with any of your posts – I like them! But we need to be welcoming to the people who disagree so we can learn what their arguments are. I love sitting in front of a liberal crowd of people who argue that we must do something about “Global Warming”. The more I hear and understand, the more powerful my rebuttals will be. It’s fun even though my wife, who agrees with me, squirms a bit when I preach from fact and truth.
Mosher is absolutely predictable. When things aren’t going his way he gets increasingly snarky, and increasingly cryptic.
Skeptic says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm
“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.
Had you stopped after the first sentence, one may have been inclined to verify what you said. Of course, even if it was verified that what you said was true, and it certainly could be the case, then it does not necessarily follow that their conclusions were accurate.
But the second sentence seems way off! Temperatures have not risen for 16 years (at least on RSS), so why should we pay any attention to greenhouse gas emissions? Perhaps the sun is more important than their conclusion indicates.
Yes but, you didn’t think a little thing like a wet blanket would slow them down did you.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Study__Climate_change_predictions_from_1990_have_come_true_13_12_2012?ref=ccbox_weather_category3
The chart’s mushy. I think it says observations have now breached the 95%CI. Tell me that’s so. I want an early xmas present!
“My God. Do you know what this means? It means that this damn thing doesn’t work at all!”
Doc Brown [Back to the Future]
Ah yes, but its all going into the deep oceans, where they have 1 measurement per squillion square kms, which will be adjusted upwards, flattened out, and whatever else is necassary.
@ur momisugly richard
Far, a long long way to run,
Tar, a needle pulling thread,
Sar, a model that is dead…
does that work?
@ur momisugly Robert M: And that chart is with ADJUSTED data. They are cheating and still losing. I wonder how that makes them feel.
That’s what I want to shout out–why aren’t all these references to each of the Tar Sar and Far–Giss, Met and so on, charts and temps all shown with a disclaimer? Disclaimer: this chart uses “adjusted” temps. Note: this chart uses raw data. We need a disclaimer on each posting.
Yes Rosco, we KNOW this is happening: 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.
We should refer to it often in the post–not only in the comments…just my frustrated opinion.
Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that facts matter or that the Administration, Lisa Jackson.the MSM. the Academies, etc will back off their goal of reducing carbon emissions in any way whatsoever.
There are already numerous examples of many irrational and delusional practices in the the organations lised above. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be reminded of the attitude toward the $16 +trillion (and quickly growing) debt which has been amassed in the US in addition to debt in other institutions such as California and other Countries in Europe.
I seriously doubt these facts will affecr the agenda for renewable fuels, carbon tax, electric cars,etc. Facts don’t seem to matter anymore about very much.
Hey, it’s their chart!
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-science-doubters-world-warming-080143113.html
“Thomas Coffey, 77, of Houston, said you can’t help but notice it.
“We use to have mild temperatures in the fall going into winter months. Now, we have summer temperatures going into winter,” Coffey said. “The whole Earth is getting warmer and when it gets warmer, the ice cap is going to melt and the ocean is going to rise.”
He also said that’s what he thinks is causing recent extreme weather.
“That’s why you see New York and New Jersey,” he said, referring to Superstorm Sandy and its devastation in late October. “When you have a flood like that, flooding tunnels like that. And look at how long the tunnel has been there.”
Paraphrasing Frasier: “Good Night Mosher, Science has left the building!”
Catcracking says:
December 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“Facts don’t seem to matter anymore about very much.”
The really sad part of that is it really does state the case! The very fly that landed in the climate change soup……
Lord Monkton and I agree. The best way to deal with climate change … if any, is to adapt after the fact. It’s much cheaper than trying to control the work of the sun and the ocean currents etc.
MUCH CHEAPER and far more effective since we would be dealing with a known quantity.
Essentially, it is not looking good for how reliable the consensus “97% agreement” argument stands up.
At the same time, the main claim of humans being the cause isn’t covered by this. Unless we recognize – and point out in the strongest terms – this as showing that there is no causal connection between the rising CO2 and the temps.
Steve Garcia
Henry@werner
Thks for ur post. Hadcrut 4 looks a bit out. 2007 is too high? – u must admit that you can see my parabolic curve now from 1992 going up reaching max 1998 and now curving down. Earth energy store empty now. We will drop 0.3 from now until 2020 and it will not stop cooling until at least 2035…..