Chart of the Day – 90 climate model projectons versus reality

Maybe the IPCC 95% certainty was right...just not the conclusion

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.

So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much. 

Honest mistake. Don’t you think? Maybe?

cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1

 

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • drummerboy

    Defiantly not an honest mistake. if we listened to them and all became communist they would have used this chart and been screaming from the roof tops that they saved us all.

  • cows4me

    You can be 96.7% sure that AGW is a complete crock of bullshit, the other 3.3% is natural warming.

    • Patrick

      Natural warming or AGW – caused by all the hot air expended by the commies trying to foist new taxes & controls on the citizens?
      As usual beware of the law of unintended consequences, greenies are trying to safe the world but in fact they are destroying it. All that flying about in jet airliners, subsidising non green manufacturing processes to make supposedly green energy. Crock of shit the whole lot of it.

    • Patrick

      Natural warming or AGW – caused by all the hot air expended by the commies trying to foist new taxes & controls on the citizens?
      As usual beware of the law of unintended consequences, greenies are trying to safe the world but in fact they are destroying it. All that flying about in jet airliners, subsidising non green manufacturing processes to make supposedly green energy. Crock of shit the whole lot of it.

      • Magoo

        Not to mention all that CO2 expelled by greenies breathing heavily as they ride their bicycles around.

  • OK so the short term trend was going up , but as the sine wave changed direction, they point blank refused to acknowledge it, that’s not science anymore it’s scaremongering, full stop.

  • Rimutaka

    1/ So the charts do show a warming tend, yes.

    2/ The conclusion of “an honest mistake” is from Dr Roy Spencer a signatory to an Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”, yes.

    3/ Dr Roy Spencer is a proponent of “Intelligent Design”, yes.

    4/ A more rational skeptic Judith Curry states “There is no simple way to interpret these comparisons.” “there is no published analysis that I know of that compares CMIP5 simulations to observations”

    We can safely conclude therefore that global warming is occurring and that Dr Roy Spencer’s scientific opinions are coloured by his religious beliefs and should be taken with a cup of salt and would be the extremist deniers position.

    • Magoo

      1/ Yes, but the warming for the last 15-23 yrs is statistically insignificant as it’s less than the margins of error. That gives us a maximum of around 18 yrs warming attributable to AGW (1980-1998) followed by a minimum of 16 yrs no warming (1998- 2013). Not a good record. Yes?

      2/ What have Spencer’s personal beliefs got to do with the scientific data? The data says what it says and Spencer is right to point out the models have failed – and failed they have. Yes?

      3/ Not much ‘intelligent design’ has gone into the climate models. At least there is a possibility of intelligent design, but the possibility of the climate models being correct are zero as they’ve failed already. Yes?

      4/ There are the computer models that predict a tropospheric hotspot that was supposed to appear, and this would’ve be proof of positive feedback from water vapour (around 2/3’s of the predicted warming is supposed to come form water vapour). Without water vapour feedback the max. it can warm is 1.2C per doubling of TOTAL (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2. The hotspot has failed to appear in over 40 yrs of searching by both satellite and over 30,000,000 weather balloons. Yes?

      Character assassination is all that’s left to those with no evidence.

      I’ll add one other thing. Here are over peer reviewed scientific 1100 papers that dispute the official IPCC line. More than just 1 scientist who rightly points out that the computer are wrong don’t you think? Yes?

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      • Rimutaka

        1/ Draw a straight line from 1983 to 2013,what is the trend, cherry picking a few years is not going change that, I can do that too, in the last 5 years ie since 2008 has the temp increased, decreased or stayed the same?

        2/ I told you already, Spencer signed a declaration that Earths ecosystem are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting because God made it that way. Are you suggesting his religious belief hasn’t coloured his scientific thinking, really, wow, are you aware what a declaration is?

        We can safely conclude therefore that over the last 30 years global warming has occurred and that Dr Roy Spencer’s scientific opinions are coloured by his religious beliefs. Yes. Anything else is just wishful thinking by those without the ability to think critically.

        • Magoo

          1/ Stop being so pathetic. The trend you point out has only been warming for 50% of the time (the first half). If the trend stayed flat for the next 1000 yrs according to your logic there’d still be a warming trend. It’s a 50% fail rate which means the odds of the computer models getting it right are no better than flipping a coin. Any warming before the late 1970’s/early 1980’s is not attributable to AGW.

          2/ I don’t care what Spencer signed as long as his science is sound, and when he points out the empirical evidence says the computer models have failed (as they have) then he is correct. It seems to me that those who refuse to acknowledge the empirical data because it conflicts with their theory are the real ones whose beliefs are based more in theology than science.

          Yes, in the last 30 yrs global warming has occurred, but for the last 50% of that time it hasn’t. Spencer’s scientific opinions are coloured by the empirical data that shows that the computer models have failed.

          Look at this way Rimutaka – If there is no tropospheric hot spot what evidence is there of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour? If there is no evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour, how can it warm more than 1.2C max. per doubling of total (not just man’s) CO2? If it can’t warm more than 1.2C max., how is AGW a problem. The only way around this is to find the tropospheric hotspot, but as I said it hasn’t been found in over 40 yrs of data from multiple sources. This is why the computer models have failed and the results are what you’d expect when 2/3’s of the warming attributable to water vapour is deducted.

          Without water vapour to double/triple the miniscule warming attributable to CO2, at the current rate of annual CO2 output (2.17 parts per million) it will take 181 yrs to warm 1.2C. After that it will take another 362 yrs to double and warm another 1.2C, and then another 725 yrs etc. It will take 543 yrs to warm 2.4C, and that’s on the assumption that the maximum of 1.2C is correct, which it probably isn’t as it’s at the extreme end of the predictions.

  • Day Day

    95% sure? How about putting the “5%” being unsure under the microscope? What exactly are they unsure about? They should spit it out, so we can all make our determinations! The bottom line is the numbers simply don’t stack up with the claims of the present institutionalized orthodoxy. CO2 driven global warming is not calculable, the process cannot be described by any reliable formula. If a physical phenomenon cannot be described as such, then it’s very existence must be held up to question.

  • emmess74

    Interesting discussion here

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/10/science-wrong

    Especially the bit about the peer reviews with 8 deliberate errors sent out to 200 peer reviewers who only pickup up two errors each on average

  • Bad__Cat

    The left never let facts get in the way of a good story

    • Patrick

      They never let the facts get in the way of new methods of taxation & control over the citizens.

  • Andy

    The models are hard-wired for high climate sensitivity, and recent papers based on empirical observations point to low climate sensitivity, so it’s not hard to see why they are wrong

41%