Reality wins, it seems. Dr Roy Spencer writes:
As seen in the following graphic, over the period of the satellite record (1979-2012), both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends which are below 87 of the 90 climate models used in the comparison.
![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg)
more here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
Clearly that simply means that the satellites and surface records need further adjustment to conform to reality.
Is this the 97% consensus? Sorry, couldn’t resist. Another juicy jewel to provide to my growing circle of layman skeptics.
As RJB would state. The really clever work now would be to bin all the model that are failures and investigate why the two at the bottom have matched reality and what they have assumed compared with the failed ones.
That’s the Potential published paper work What have the model winners assumed that the model failures haven’t
The typo in the title gave me an idea. “Projectons” must be the hypothetical quantum particle simulated in the models to give them a little lift.
I worry that at some point they start fudging the measuring devices. I like the new “Like this” feature.
Does the “Like this” work? I didn’t see any evidence that my clicks got counted. I refreshed after clicking them, and nothing changed.
Jumped over to Dr Spencer’s blog and the top ad was for “Death Records online!” Maybe that was a Freudian coincidence??
It appears that 97% of climate models CAN in fact be wrong.
Nah
It indicates that the current measurements still fall within Modeled Ranges
Nah
It really indicates that 97% of climate models really are wrong
How many of the models are using the Mann math term in them?
Are you alright Sun?
LOL…
but I only see two…not three….and those two were invalidated around 1998
Notice that the model runs do indicate pauses and short cooling periods. They don’t agree on when these occur after about 2000. That’s why in the average you don’t see pauses. But in the individual runs you do.
The models likely do not include changes in solar irradiation, volcanic activity, China’s increase in SO2 emissions, the reduction in CFC emissions or the Great Recession. That we don’t have good ways of modeling the el Nino/la Nina cycle is unfortunate. But if AGW is false, shouldn’t we have had some cooling periods this decade like in the 90s? Where did the cooling go? Isn’t it a travesty that you cannot find the cooling? It cannot be hiding in the oceans because they have still been warming.
Just by eyeball, it looks like the lowest trending model is running about 1C Per century. So it actually has a chance of being close. The highest trending models are already falsified. But they are kept to increase the average.
This just makes me laugh, especially when this article appeared in the news today.
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/calgary/world-temperatures-go-off-the-chart-by-2047-study-says-3
Yeah, and 97% of climate-related public policy decisions are still being based on the 97% consensus which, according to the best hard data we have, is 97% wrong.
This is 97% messed up!
Maybe another came up with that idea before Dr. Roy Spencer 😉
Just a quick question. Why are temperatures given as a 5 year mean? Why not plot the actual temperature?
There are 3 words that Warmists hate to see in the same paragraph. These 3 words can cause intolerable mental conflict.
*Projections, *observations, *comparisons.
At one of the IPCC insiders’ meetings they knew full well that there was a problem. Some bright spark must have suggested that they simple pluck a new confidence number out of thin air otherwise they would be doomed (and shamed). Desperate times call for desperate measures. Just look at the graph. You won’t see this kind of behavior in any other science.
“JustAnotherPoster says: October 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm
The really clever work now would be to bin all the model that are failures and investigate why the two at the bottom have matched reality and what they have assumed compared with the failed ones.”
While the bottom ones do model it better I don’t see how they have matched it. Their long term 1 degree C per century appears to be correct but still fall short.
The one prediction from 1979 appears to be most accurate in that it called the end to the cold in mid 80s, warmth until 2000 and flatline ….. you don’t want to know what they say is next. Trust me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/old-prediction-may-fit-the-present-pattern/
Get yer wool socks out folks. Still the most accurate prediction over the longest period. I wonder if either scientist is still active in the field or retired? Would be a great interview.
I would say 100% are wrong. The fact that 2 or 3 haven’t overshot the temperature doesn’t make them right. They aren’t following the observed temperature. It’s clear that none of them simulate the actual climate.