IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

[ScienceRocks]

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.

IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,


"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

 

[westwall]

What a ridiculous assertion. We have over 30 years of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Abraham3]

From Matthew's article:

and an older one:

What have you got?

 

[SSDD]

What a ridiculous assertion. We have over 30 years of evidence to the contrary.

It is interesting to see who the real deniers are and to what lengths they will go to preserve their cult.

AR5 is the death knell of the warmist cult but they don't know it. I plan on eating a lot of popcorn by the fire this upcoming long cold winter and watching the meltdown that has already begun. The sheer ineptitude of AR5 has, I believe, given scientists the go ahead to break with the consensus and start doing some real science which must first begin with eradicating all of the CO2 foolishness that has been spread over the past few decades.

The near future promises to be even more entertaining than the present.

 

[westwall]

What a ridiculous assertion. We have over 30 years of evidence to the contrary.

It is interesting to see who the real deniers are and to what lengths they will go to preserve their cult.

AR5 is the death knell of the warmist cult but they don't know it. I plan on eating a lot of popcorn by the fire this upcoming long cold winter and watching the meltdown that has already begun. The sheer ineptitude of AR5 has, I believe, given scientists the go ahead to break with the consensus and start doing some real science which must first begin with eradicating all of the CO2 foolishness that has been spread over the past few decades.

The near future promises to be even more entertaining than the present.

I agree. The full court press in the media trying to support it has been amusing as well. The comments sections of all the various media sources is overwhelmingly negative, over 90% of the comments blast the articles.

 

[Abraham3]

So, neither of you has any data to back up your claims of inaccurate projections from the IPCC?

 

[IanC]

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.

IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,


"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

hi matt.

do you think that new graph will hold up? there seems to be some rather odd adjustments to it. if it is right then the AR4 is wrong.

and since when has 0.15C/decade been the standard? it was 0.20+ only a couple of years ago. there seems to be a lot of past statements going down the memory hole lately.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists present facts and evidence, the denialists present flap-yap and lies. Same ol', same ol'.

 

[JoeNormal]

From Matthew's article:

and an older one:

What have you got?

You can see why Lindzen doesn't think there's anything to global warming. It doesn't exist in his model. Unfortunately, the model bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen is a whore for the tobacco companies and for the energy companies.

 

[westwall]

Lindzen is a whore for the tobacco companies and for the energy companies.

And you're a whore for the steel making industry. Your point? That you're a hypocrite? Yes, yes you are certainly that.

 

[Abraham3]

Am I to believe that NONE of you have yet to find any evidence to support the claim you've ALL been making at the top of your lungs: that the IPCC projections were WRONG? C'mon! We've got 15 years of unprecedented 'not-warming'. Surely there are some gaps between what was expected and what actually happened?

Where's the data?