Guest post by David M. Hoffer
In my first two articles on the leaked AR5 Chapter 11 (near-term projections) I looked at the caveats with which the IPCC is now surrounding their projections, and the lengths to which they are going to preserve the alarmist narrative. The caveats go to such ridiculous lengths that there is actually a quote suggesting that reality may well be within, above, or below the range projected by the models. Falsify that! To maintain the alarmist narrative , they characterize record ice extent in the Antarctic as a “slight increase” and make no mention in the executive summary of the projection buried deep in the report that tropical cyclones may decrease in frequency by as much as one third by 2100.
But what of their temperature projections? Do they say how much they expect it to warm up in the next few decades? They do. But these are the high stakes projections for the IPCC because, unlike most of their projections, these ones will be falsified (or not) within the life times of most of this readership. True to form, they’ve surrounded their temperature projections with caveats while taking an interesting approach to maintaining the alarmist narrative.
The projection is for between 0.4 and 1.0 degrees of warming for the period 2016-2035 compared to the period 1986-2005. Now normally when the IPCC gives a range, we expect that their “best guess” is in the centre of the range. But oddly we find this phrase in Chapter 11:
[…] it is more likely than not that actual warming will be closer to the lower bound of 0.4°C than the upper bound of 1.0°C
In fact, they go out of their way elsewhere to suggest that the most likely outcome will be about 0.2 degrees per decade. With 2035 only a smidge over two decades away, how do they justify an upper bound 2.5 times their most likely scenario? While delving into this, I came across some rather interesting information. Here’s the graphs they provide with their projections for the beginning of the reference period (1986-2005) through to the year 2050:
Figure 11.33: Synthesis of near-term projections of global mean surface air temperature. a) 4 Projections of global mean, annual mean surface air temperature (SAT) 1986–2050 (anomalies relative to 1986–2005) under all RCPs from CMIP5 models (grey and coloured lines, one ensemble member per model), with four observational estimates (HadCRUT3: Brohan et al., 2006; ERA-Interim: Simmons et al., 2010; GISTEMP: Hansen et al., 2010; NOAA: Smith et al., 2008) for the period 1986–2011 (black lines); b) as a) but showing the 5–95% range for RCP4.5 (light grey shades, with the multi-model median in white) and all RCPs (dark grey shades) of decadal mean CMIP5 projections using one ensemble member per model, and decadal mean observational estimates (black lines). The maximum and minimum values from CMIP5 are shown by the grey lines. An assessed likely range for the mean of the period 2016–2035 is indicated by the black solid bar. The ‘2°C above pre-industrial’ level is indicated with a thin black line, assuming a warming of global mean SAT prior to 1986–2005 of 0.6°C. c) A synthesis of ranges for the mean SAT for 2016–2035 using SRES CMIP3, RCPs CMIP5, observationally constrained projections (Stott et al., 2012; Rowlands et al., 2012; updated to remove simulations with large future volcanic eruptions), and an overall assessment. The box 1 and whiskers represent the likely (66%) and very likely (90%) ranges. The dots for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 estimates show the maximum and minimum values in the ensemble. The median (or maximum likelihood estimate for Rowlands et al., 2012) are indicated by a greyband.
Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning? So I started to focus on the second graph which is presented in a fashion that makes it useful. But in examining it, I noticed that something is missing. I’ll give everyone 5 minutes to go back and see if they can spot it for themselves.
Tick
Tick
Tick
Did you spot it?
They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:
Well oops. Once on brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios. The light gray shading is for RCP 4.5, the most likely emission scenario. But we’re also below the dark gray which is all emission scenarios for all models, including the ones where we strangle the global economy.
It gets worse.
I did a little back of the envelope math (OK, OK, a spreadsheet, who has envelopes anymore these days?) and calculated that, assuming a linear warming starting today, we’d need to get to 1.58 degrees above the reference period to get an average of +1.0 over the course of the reference period itself. If my calcs are correct, extrapolating a straight line from end of current observations through 1.6 degrees in 2035 ought to just catch the top of that black bar showing the “Likely Range” in the centre of the graph:
Hah! Nailed it!
But now it is even worse for the IPCC. To meet the upper bound of their estimated range, the IPCC would need warming that (according to their own data) is below projections for all their models in all emission scenarios to suddenly increase to a rate higher than all their projections from all their models across all emission scenarios. In brief, the upper range of their estimate cannot be supported by their own data from their own models.
In fact, just based on their own graph, we’ve seen less than 0.4 degrees over the last 26 years or so, less than 2 degrees per century. That brown line I’ve drawn in represents a warming trend beginning right now and continuing through 2035 of 6 degrees per century, triple recent rates. Since the range in their own graph already includes scenarios such as drastic reductions in aerosols as well as major increases in CO2, there simply is no justification in their own data and their own models to justify an upper bound of 1.0 degrees.
That’s not to say it is impossible, I suppose it is possible. It is also possible that I will be struck by lightning twice tomorrow and survive, only to die in airplane crash made all the more unlikely by the fact that I’m not flying anywhere tomorrow, so that plane will have to come and find me. Of course with my luck, the winning Powerball ticket will be found in my wallet just to cap things off.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely?
Not according to their own data and their own models. The current version of IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 takes deception (intended or otherwise) to new heights. First, by hiding the fact that observational data lies outside the 95% confidence range of their own models, and second by estimating an upper range of warming that their own models say is next to impossible.
Related articles
- IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 – Maintaining the Spin (wattsupwiththat.com)
- IPCC Chapter 11 – Bankruptcy Protection (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell – plus a poll (wattsupwiththat.com)
- An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Martin van Etten says:
December 31, 2012 at 4:13 am
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer / December 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Dear David,
if we leave out the “day’s end” remark, its getting even more strange when you talk about “hiding the decline”, while the article of Rowlands et al and the graph you are commenting on in my opinion are not showing any hiding of a decline at all, so, I guess, the headline of your article is definitely wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The AR5 Ch11 SOD draft presents the information in such a manner that makes it seem as if it is consistent with the 95% confidence range of the models. Examining the raw data shows that this is not the case, that in fact temps have declined below the 95% confidence range. Averaging the temps below the confidence range with temps above the confidence range on the excuse that the decadal average is somehow relevant is at best, incompetent, at worst, deliberately deceptive. It really doesn’t matter in the least what studies you participated in, nor what they show. What we’re interested in is what data the IPCC is presenting and what it shows because that is what the IPCC is asking the world’s leaders to make decisions upon. When we cease using deceptive means such as decadal averages imposed on less than 3 decades of data, for which there is no plausible purpose, and instead look at the data directly, the fact is that current temps are below the 95% confidence range of the models, making it (to use IPCC terminology) highly certain that the models are wrong.
In addition, it is important to note the second conclusion I drew everyone’s attention to, which is that the upper bound of the IPCC estimates simply cannot be supported by any data they present. To hit 1 degree of warming over the 2016-2035 period, we’d need an acceleration in warming to a rate more than 3 times the rate we have ever seen in the instrumental era, and it would have to start right now. Every year that goes by means an even higher rate of warming for the years left. If we see no warming for about 4 years, the IPCC will need 4x or 5x warming to hit their upper bound. They don’t even have a physics basis to build this upon. Their consensus estimate is for 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling (feedbacks included) with time to equilibrium being in the decades at minimum, more likely centuries. We’re only at 40% of doubling now, and might hit 50% by 2035. To achieve 6 degrees per century to hit their upper bound estimate, we’d need sensitivity to be on the order of 20 degrees per doubling and for equilibrium to be nearly instant, let alone decades or centuries.
So why is a number that is unsupportable by the data presented, by the models presented, and by the physics claimed in earlier reports, in the report in the first place? It is there so that alarmists can quote the IPCC as saying “as much as 1 degree” in the hopes the otherwise intelligent people will accept it at face value rather than look at the data themselves, and if they do bother to look at the IPCC reports, thjat they will be fooled by a cursory glance at a chart deceptively presented with decadal averages which serve to hide the facts.
Deceptive? I find it hard to argue that the presentation as we see it in AR5 SOD is anything but. The real question is if calling it deceptive is strong enough language. Given the restrictions on personal liberty and the poverty that will result from the actions being proposed on the basis of IPCC projections, I favour “beneath contempt”.
Roger Longstaff
It looks like the Met Office have changed their previous decadal forecast of 0.8C by 2020 to that shown below but their forecast for 2013 seems at the high end of their decadal forecast. They are using different base periods or averages which confuse the issue . The decadal forecast seems to say that the global temperatures will be flat but the annual forecast calls for significant or record warming ? Confusing?
Latest MET Office decadal forecast dated December 24,2012
Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average ).
Latest MET Office annual 2013 forecast dated December20,2012
20 December 2012 – 2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.
David M. Hoffer, I don’t doubt for a minute that the models have over-estimated their projections of current temps, the problem I think begins with the talk of 95% confidence intervals. This implies that the models are part of a statistical process and hence the projections can be validated or falsified statistically. The trouble is that they’re not predictions, they’re projections, if they were making scientific predictions these could be validated or falsified statistically, but they’re not, so they can’t.
I think perhaps we are giving these projections more credence than they should be getting simply by discussing it as if they can be validated/falsified in the first place (i.e “16 years of no warming invalidates models”, etc). The IPCC model process was never scientific in the first place so should be attacked on those grounds, right at the root of the problem. Attacking it on grounds such as are presented in this post, almost make it seem as though we’re accepting that it WAS a scientific process originally. In which case the IPCC gets more “weight” behind it’s projections than it deserves, whether they’re right or wrong!
herkimer says: December 31, 2012 at 10:26 am: “The decadal forecast seems to say that the global temperatures will be flat but the annual forecast calls for significant or record warming ? Confusing?”
Yes sir, I am very confused! But not to worry, I am sure that the Met Office’s future retrospective forecasts will sort out the confusion for us.
David – I also favour “beneath contempt”. In the UK our biofuels, windmills and solar farms have already pushed up food and fuel prices to the point that our kids go to bed hungry and our old folk have to choose between heating and eating. The modellers at the Met Office have provided the data that enabled these policies of criminal insanity to be written into government legislation (the Climate Change Act). These people already have blood on their hands.
Rant over. Happy New Year everyone!
thefordprefect says: December 31, 2012 at 8:24 am
==========================
The last warming trend ended in 1997 and is history. We presently are cooling and this trend is expected to continue in accord with the usual fluctuation of climate. Nothing new under the sun.
By the way, were you aware that crop yields have ben enhanced by anthropogenic CO2? This is a fact, and present crop yield models are being modified to accomodate that welcome news. So, Happy New Year, stay warm.
mpainter
Graham W says: December 31, 2012 at 10:28 am
=================================
You have a valid point in that the very basis for the models is false assumptions.
However, the whole of the AGW movement is a propaganda mill fed by dubious science. It seems important to focus attention on particular methods of deception and expose such practices to public scrutiny, as David Hoffer has so commendably done in his postings.
To proclaim that AGW is wrong from the very start and leave it at that is to concede the field to the global warmers- and this would be a mistake, I think.
Roger Longstaff
As confusing as the Met Ofiice annual global forecast is, their long term forecast of 4C rise by 2060 is even more absurd . To look at Davids Hoffer’s graph with his red line , one would have to draw an even steeper line to meet 4C by 2060. In my opinion,. it is absolutely amazing that this type of garbage climate science is being put out by a governmental body in the name of science.One can see why people are becoming less and less trustful of science and especially climate science.
I take your point mpainter, and I didn’t mean to come across like I was saying it’s not worthwhile to point out ALL the flaws in the AGW argument wherever possible…I do think it’s worthwhile. I just think the IPCC are playing the long game. They’re not worried if their projections are off – they’ll just say “it’s a developing science, they’ll get better in the future wait and see”…it’s a game that they’re playing and they invented the rules of the game (the models). In a way, by arguing that these models can be validated or falsified statistically, we are implicitly agreeing to play their game by their rules. But can they be beaten at their own game? They’ve got an awful lot of bets riding on it.
Beating that metaphor to death there!
If i may say so in the above article and the comments made by both warmists and deniers (haha), it is forgoton that all data sets are incorrect from say 1880 to 2012, except for CET rural station. (we only have satellite data from 1979 and that shows nothing flat zero zilch as they say).The UHI effect is incredibly obvious and cities have grown and airports are busier etc. In fact, I would dare say that ALL the increase that is reported to 2010 (~0.6C) and now to 2012 (~0.3C), is actually artificial. The only set you could believe is probably CET central england temperature (earliest one) and I believe that shows nothing zero zilch.So I conclude that there has been no significant change in mean global temperatures since 1880, so I am therefore what is termed a “REAL DENIER”, haha
@richard verney: Thank you for the breakdown of the corruption for us. Having examples helps remind us that it is indeed to be expected that the larger public trough, the more pigs there will be to take the money and benefit from it at the expense of the others’ right to be free to keep the fruits of their productivity. I do believe that local governments should be able to tax as they see fit for the benefit of all – but not for the benefit of chosen groups beyond the helpless. Now, how do we define helpless…? There is the downward spiral of the socialist creed.
As we enter 2013 with a draft of the IPCC’s AR5 available thanks to one step towards transparency, I started wondering about the time it takes the IPCC to produce these reports. AR5 began in July 2009 with meetings in Venice, followed by meetings in Liege, Bali, Busan, Kumming, Tsukuba, Changwon City, Brest, San Francisco, to produce a first draft from Working Group 1 (the physical science) for expert review by Feb 2012. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/key_dates_AR5_schedulepdf.pdf
After another round of meetings in various delightful locations, the second order draft of WG1 for Government and expert review was delivered in November 2012. Drafts of WG2 (impacts) and WG3 (mitigation) are due by May 2013, Lead authors of WG1 will meet in Hobart in January to review the comments received (WUWT has added to their workload!), WG1 assessment report is scheduled to be approved in Stockholm in September 2013, with WG2 and 3 reports to be approved in March/April 2014,
Then the core writing team will work from April to October 2014 to produce the final Synthesis Report ready for COP20 in December 2014. So much for the need for urgent action on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!
Happy New Year to all.
Eliza says:
December 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm
….The UHI effect is incredibly obvious and cities have grown and airports are busier etc. In fact, I would dare say that ALL the increase that is reported to 2010 (~0.6C) and now to 2012 (~0.3C), is actually artificial. The only set you could believe is probably CET central england temperature (earliest one) and I believe that shows nothing zero zilch.So I conclude that there has been no significant change in mean global temperatures since 1880, so I am therefore what is termed a “REAL DENIER”, haha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
Actually there is a bit more evidence they have not mucked with.
Zoom on bottom graph: graph Explanation link
Hi there!
Just a quick question.. What is the dashed line in the first two graphs supposed to mean?
(Before you answer, please realize that today is the last day of 2012 and within a few hours all data of this year will be historical!)
I really dont think the next IPCC-report should rely on models which are about 7 years old, if I understood the meaning of that dashed line correctly..
All best wishes for 2013
LoN
Off thread – but Happy New Year to Anthony, and to all!
And thanks to Anthony & all contributors for a magnificently readable site.
More power to your collective elbow in 2013.
Auto
Martin van Etten says:
December 30, 2012 at 6:15 am
here is another graph:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1430.html
Fascinating article (well the abstract is anyway, as the main page is paywalled) …. but , you think it is proof of what, exactly? That there are a LOT more models out there that are “wronger” than those David M. Hoffer showed above? (excuse the new word, seems appropriate).
Now isn’t THAT a reassuring statement: multi thousand member […] model simulations?
Which David clearly pointed out the IPCC ar5 summary thinks will be pretty difficult to meet….
“…but extends towards larger warming…[than typical climate assessments]…”
And we can clearly see from the charts posted that that will likely make these model projections “more wrong”…
But another inescapable point arises …. “…show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario….”
If anyone builds an “energy balance” computer model, of any scale, of any type…. that model simply MUST show a temperature increase if you apply a forcing (ie more energy in than out)….
So, the results are as expected …
The question is whether the existence, mechanism and scale of the forcing is actually correctly calculated.
And the leaked IPCC ar5 charts are starting to show clear evidence that it may not be.
Graham W says: @ur momisugly December 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
….Before anyone says “well they won’t do that because the entire IPCC mandate is based on CO2 controlling temperature” – why couldn’t it be done outside of the IPCC?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has been done but the people are making their living as accurate weather forecasters so they are not about to put their trade secret out there for everyone else.
These are the guys who gave Mayor Bloomberg advanced warning of Sandy and they are the same people he blew-off.
Mark x
High noon has arrived for AGW supporting scientists.Unless they begin to cut back their past high predictions and they can only do this if they finally acknowledge that their science and the various assumptions behind their models have been seriously flawed with respect to the impact of CO2. I see that the Met Office have finally started to cut back their decadal global annual temperature forecast to 0.43 C to 2017. If one compares the December 2011 with the December 2012 forecasts, their straight line warming prediction to 0.8 C by 2020 has now been flattened to 0.43 C to 2017. Someone has come to their senses. The next phase will be to project the figure to drop even further to 0.2 C by 2030 as the sun and GLOBAL ocean SST cycles continue to decline as they have done during the last decade.
markx says / January 1, 2013 at 5:04 am
here is another graph: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1430.html
========================
I ponted to the figure, not to the text
Laws of Nature;
Just a quick question.. What is the dashed line in the first two graphs supposed to mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My understanding is that the models were initialized with 2007 data and then run forward.
Martin van Etten says:
January 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
markx says / January 1, 2013 at 5:04 am
here is another graph: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1430.html
========================
I ponted to the figure, not to the text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You continue to miss the point. AR5 is supposedly representative of the current state of climate science which they present in their report. What they present barely makes their lower bound estimate credible, let alone their upper bound which is ridiculous. As I said in an earlier reply to you, if additional evidence exists, they should include it. They have not. Either they are preparing a state of the art report for the world’s leadership, or they aren’t.
REFERENCE THE NOTED ABOVE PAPER
“We find that model versions that reproduce observed surface temperature changes over the past 50 years show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario.”
The observed surface temperature rise hadcrut3gl for the last 50 years is only 0.01439 C per year least square trend line slope. or about 0.72 degrees . How this becomes 1.4 to 3 K during the next 50 years is the model mystery and no longer represents the observed in my opinion but a completely new slope, unrelated to the observed that rise 2- 4 times faster than the past observed. THIS IS MADE STRANGER STILL AS THE OBSERVED CURVE HAS BEEN DECLINING THE LAST 10 YEARS
@ur momisugly Tim Clark: December 31, 2012 at 9:42 am
the IPCC refers to Rowlands et al for figure 11.33 a, and Rowlands et al is based on the results from the climateprediction.net model runs;
these runs started in 1920, you can find it also in the literature and on the website from the BBC that describes the project: maybe you start here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/globalcontext.shtml
if these runs started in 1920, that makes your argument not valid;
ps: DavidmHoffer: I will answer you tomorrow
Martin van Etten;
these runs started in 1920, you can find it also in the literature and on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AR5 Ch11 contains a discussion of model runs initiated at several intervals in time. The further back in time they are initiated, the hotter they are and the further from reality compared to current observational data. I am pretty much done writing articles on Ch11, the glaring stupidity has already been pointed out. But if you really insist, I can either write a long blog reply or (at Anthony’s discretion) a whole new article explaining why you are dead wrong on this and the AR5 literature says so. The evidence that the models have a systemic warming bias that is unrealistic is rather obvious.
As for your promise to answer me “tomorrow”, I always laugh when someone says something like that. 9 times out of 10 it means “I’ve got no idea what to say so I’ve written to some other warmist for help and they haven’t replied yet”
If you had a credible response on your own, you would have simply stated it.
davidmhoffer says: January 1, 2013 at 11:56 am
Martin van Etten says:
January 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
markx says / January 1, 2013 at 5:04 am
here is another graph: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/full/ngeo1430.html
========================
I ponted to the figure, not to the text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You continue to miss the point
==============================
I don’t believe that Martin van Etten is the type that ever gets the point. He don’t wanna, soo, he ain’t gonna. Eventually he will disappear.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer (and @ur momisugly mpainter)
on New Years Day the world is bigger than wuwt; so keep on laughing; anyway the best wishes for the new year;
there is no hope you get rid of me as long as you keep your untenable position “Hiding the Decline (Part II)” and that you keep smearing the IPCC with arguments that in my opinion are not valid;
my first three postings here are just about the headline of your article and the connected paragraph that starts with “They hid the decline!”
maybe you can recall that I agreed with the initial remark of lsvalgaard and that I suggested to wait for your reply; next to that I provided you with links to the original article from Rowlands et al in Nature, because your figure1 (the IPCC-graph) is based on this information;
than you started to deny the point that you were a bit overenthousiastic in ‘discovering’ that the IPCC ‘did it again’: that they “hid a decline” (= a standstill in temperature since 1998) what makes their modelpredictions questionable;
this is however nothing new because temperatures seem not to be rising since 1998 and seem to be stalling on + 0,5 degree Celcius above pre-industrial level, ‘wrecking’ most predictions that see rising temperatures;
here it is extra strange that you hold on to this ‘hiding the decline” idea because you present an IPCC figure the makes it again very clear that the temperatures are lagging behind predictions;
(see your ‘Hah! Nailed it!” figure where you ‘show’ that upper end of the likely range will be difficuly attainable by nature)
your readers do not have to believe you or me, they even don’t have to be a specialist in climate matters, they just can see with their own eyes in your figure 1 that the IPCC presents a graph where the observations are at the very, very, very bottom of the range of predictions;
I also don’t agree with your statenment that the real world temperature is outside the range of predictions; thats why I provided you with the link to the Rowlands article in Nature and the prediction and graph published there (and that is of sufficient size to understand in the Science link I gave you);
your argument not to accept decadal means in your figure 2 – according to your article that IS the denial – is not valid, because this grapgh goes back to 1920, the start of the model runs of the climateprediction.net experiment:
you said the period is too short, but you don’t accept the method when it is clear that the period it is long enough…,
so it is difficult to discuss with you, first you dont read the literature (‘it is too politicised’), than you start insulting the people that coöperated (what is this garbage of “spaghetti”) and last but not least, you don’t accept arguments that counter your statements;
well, I keep on trying: please do read the BBC article about the Rowlands publication and the connection with the climateprediction.net project:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450
please pay also special attention to these remarks there:
“Myles Allen of the School of Geography and Environment and Department of Physics, Oxford University, principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said other climate modelling groups’ data did not “set out to explore the full range of uncertainty, which is why studies like ours are needed.”
and:
“The research was described as “an important step toward estimating uncertainty more comprehensively,” by Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.”
you could also take note of the announcement of this article on my website about climate and environment and follow the link there to an earlier article that I wrote in October 2007 – in Durch, but the graph however will be understandable:
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/kv_media_buitenland.html#climateprediction
and
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/kv_bbc_climate_change_experiment.html
I would also like to draw your attention to the Second Order Draft (SOD) of chapter 11 of the AR5, paragraph 11.3.6.3, remarks 1 to 5, espacially remark 4 that says:
“Over the last to decades the rate of global warming that has been observed is at the lower end of rates simulated by CMIP 5 models” (Page 11-58, see stopgreensuicide.com for a copy of the illegally leaked draft)
see also point 5: all the projections rely on climate models to some extent. As emphasised in the Introduction to 11.3.6 there maybe processes operating in the real world that are missing from, or inadequately represented in the models.”
so in my opinion you cannot maintain the position that ‘they’ “are hiding the decline”
it is also very contra-productive because the real question here is from a different order:
it should be: why are the models wrong, why is reality lagging behind the predictions?
and, see point 4 on page 11 – 58 of chapter 11: “is there an imminent acceleration in the rate of observed warming” to be expected?
a very important question for the policymakers you are so concerned about (See the unpreparedness in the ‘Sandy’ discussion);
Hi Martin: You might be pleased to read some good information by checking out Bob Tisdale’s works. He convincingly explains that we do know much more about where the heat is stored and released in the oceans – and how natural change can explain the measured warming and cooling we’ve observed. The fantasy that CO2 drives climate is based on not more than a short term correlation which is why there’s so much need to adjust, hide, change the past, etc etc.
For me? I think all evidence points that CO2 is the stuff of life, without which there is no life on earth. Though, like you, I am worried about pollution. Unfortunately, burning fossil fuels does release some pollution, but the CO2 part is not pollution. If we focus on the science, instead of the politics, we could have credible policy in place to limit pollution to acceptable levels without demonizing CO2.