Who refuses to acknowledge that we (temperatures) have fallen below IPCC (climate model) "estimates"?

"Logic" according to fake-question-poser Mike: Stock markets have not moved exactly as analysts' models predicted, therefore capitalism is a socialist hoax.

I recommend you read the papers on the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change) especially the technical paper about the modelling (the Reports 2007). The papers really state the problems the scientists have to model future climate change and they came up with 7 of them, all with different stating assumptions, the most likely is a increase in average temperature of 2 and 4 degrees Celsius until 2100 and the political discussion is based on this models.

They especially point out how difficult it is to create a model as it is a huge and extremely complex system they deal with and the number of data points and the influencing factors are not very well known and therefore difficult to predict. Every additional and modelling will be better as we learn daily about the system. You basically try to model the future of this planet.

The AR 5 graph shows an increase from appr. 1993 to 2010 in this range, in absolute value of appr.0.6 degrees Celsius over 17 years and it is well within the model.

So: your statement is correct: the data points are lower then other expected data points during this period and can be interpreted that we are on the way to the 2 - 4 degree model (and that was assumed to be the most likely).

But: 17 data points of a projection of nearly 100 years is not significant and the mathematical variation is still within the model.

But: the use of the "average global temperature" is only one factor, there are other observations as melting glaziers, melting arctic ice caps, change in precipitation, droughts, changing hurricane paths, increase in coal burning, more aerosols in the atmosphere (especially China) and much more, on a local basis the situation can be very different. The problem is: the effects of climate change (which is not questioned based on local data) but the effects on human civilization on a very local level: e.g. a 6.6 earth quake in the Anden mountains have basically no effect but the same earthquake in the Los Angeles area or as happened in Japan with a Tsunami can have horrible effects.

The situation has to be monitored locally and the possible effects be determined and that has to be considered in local activity (a hurricane very 5 years in New Orleans, New York or New Jersey are not a problem if the infrastructure is build to withstand one).

So is it a reading disability or are you just trying to ignore what was said, you quote me, but leave out the detail (a common denier trick)

a) deniers have said for several years that the temperatures had fallen below the IPCC models

b) the only model available when they made those claims where the AR4 models which no matter how you try to twist it, the temps had not fallen below.

c) As I stated in the other question you are not posting a link to the IPCC, you are post an individual image from some third party site that a translation of shows as right wing, if that is what you wish to believe then that's up to you, personal I have seen more than enough fake diagrams from deniers and denier blogs to put little faith in this one, I could be wrong, but I will wait till AR5 is actually released.

The point being that regardless of the accuracy of models deniers made a claim (based on AR4) that was simply not true, you can huff and puff as much as you want and quote new data (that may or may not be real) but that facts doesn't change, but watching you try to re-write history is a fascinating insight into how denier work.

The AR4 was quite plain

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

and we had not fallen below those estimates, whither you call it a lie or a fib or any other name, deniers claims where simply not true we had not fallen below those estimates.

I have to also wonder about a denier who would post this AR5 diagram (if it is real) as it may have escaped your attention but the observed markers make a joke of the denier claim of cooling since 1998, or is that last weeks theory now. Given that this is you and not a rational person I guess it's a waste of time to point out that you AR5 diagram show quite different temps (observed) to those that actually where observed.

Your AR5 has 1998 - 0.5c above the mean

NASA have 1998 at 0.61c, so the diagram you present is based on CRU data, funny how denier lurch from saying they are discredited to trying to use them, if it is from them.

Then we have the usual old link to Roy (which is apparently going to blind us) or should that be bore us, with Roy playing his now standard tune, of making estimates that are well below anyone else's, you honestly think anyone is fooled by that sort of nonsense, our old phony Dr Jello used to list CRU, NASA, NOAA and UAH as the four temperature agencies, when UAH is just Roy Spencer.

I'm sure Watts et al will play this for their audiences just as they played the stories of a small sea level drop, in 2011, being the end of AGW, but now they simply ignore the sea level data

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaLevel

for pretty obvious reasons.

The problem, as I keep pointing out, is that the importance of the 'leveling off' of temperatures depends on what happens in the future.

For example, suppose the temperature falls outside the model predictions next year. This doesn't kill the models because real data is always messy. What will kill the models is if temperatures fall outside the range predicted and stay there. There is a statistical point where the number of years outside the prediction is sufficient to kill the model. We're not there yet, and probably won't be for at least a decade. Now, that might not suit your argument but it is a mathematical fact.

If the temperatures start to increase, and we find that they begin to return to the values predicted by the models, then all the debate over the 'levelling off' will have been pointless. Again, there will need to be a certain number of years for which that is the case for us to be statistically certain that the trend is being followed.

And so on. What I don't understand is why the temperatures leveling off is seen as a victory for those who do not agree with AGW theory. It's far too early to draw that conclusion and the simple fact is that any alternatives to AGW that have been suggested have failed to explain this pause and failed to predict what will happen in the future.

AGW makes a prediction - regardless of what has happened recently, temperatures MUST increase. To disprove AGW that prediction must be falsified, and to falsify it you must look, statistically, at the number of years we still have to take data before the quantity of data cannot be explained away.

If X plus Y amount of solar heat enters the Earth's atmosphere on the day side, X plus Y heat will have to be expelled on the night side to maintain balance. Since the beginning of the Industrial Age about 1830 and the advent of the use of coal, oil and gas the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has risen from 286ppm to almost 400ppm today. Both of the above statements are objectively true.

The excess CO2 comes entirely from the burning of fossil fuels...that also is objectively true. CO2 and other gases ARE collectively and accurately called 'greenhouse gases' with all that the term implies. That is also objectively true.

The heat index of our atmosphere has not actually increased...that's also objectively true as stated by the, for lack of a better word, the 'deniers'. But that doesn't mean that global warming or climate change isn't happening.....it only begs the question, where has all this excess heat retained by this blanket of man made CO2 gone? Short answer:

All of the excess heat retained by our CO2 laden atmosphere has gone to melt ice and warm seawater. Heat energy ALWAYS moves from warm to cold....again, this is objective and scientific reality. Ice fields are diminishing under the onslaught of this retained heat....and that's why the range of atmospheric temperatures has only advanced a fraction to several degrees. The loss of ice is objectively real...it's melting as it absorbs heat energy. This melting creates certain feedback loops that lead to even greater warming...NO scientist has EVER disagreed with this.....NONE!

Conclusion: It's true there's been no appreciable atmospheric heating and on occasion even va bit of cooling, but the trend is toward higher temperatures unrelated to volcanoes or 'the sun' getting hotter. World wide atmospheric temperatures are being held in check and will be until X amount of ice is melted...only then will temperatures rise rapidly. At the current rate we can look forward to this by mid century or sooner. There's no 'denying' any of the above.

As somebody who used to argue that it became into impossible to simulate the habit of a single tree, no longer to point international climate – until eventually a pal of mine (who I call “huge Daddy” as a results of fact he's the only individual i understand that single-handedly invented a medical discipline) did it – brushing off all climate fashions as “bunk” is purely incorrect. if fact learn that no person knows – or articulates - the predictive problems of modeling climate extra suitable than the scientists who do it. it is likewise a actuality that there has been, and maintains to be, sparkling progression in springing up fashions that extra wisely seize climate habit. in spite of everything, uncertainty on the subject of destiny consequences of climate substitute would not regulate the fact of world warming or in any way mitigate the potential effects. issues are going to alter and we are able to the two attempt to boost some information of that fluctuate or purely provide up and have confidence that issues will artwork out as a results of fact “God protects the stupid.”

Not me.

Temperatures falling below IPCC estimates are a separate issue to the supposed "pause" in global warming. I don't deny that temperatures have fallen short of IPCC forecasts. I addressed that issue in my question.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq...

But I say that we need to look at such factors as contrails, the cooling trend of the Sun and the Asian brown cloud before we jump to any conclusions to the effect that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

Just from looking at the list of items you provide - Things that are near or at the lower limit(s)of model projections are "within" the estimates, not "below" them. And "below the upper limits" does not mean "below the estimates",either.

If anything, your references would seem to confirm the accuracy of IPCC estimates.

Only an alarmist could look at these projections and say..."If anything, your references would seem to confirm the accuracy of IPCC estimates."

On a roll again with the model bullsh*t

No one cares about these models Mike except you and a couple other DA deniers

You continue to use this forum to lecture, which is no more than a rant and an irritant to those of us looking for the truth of real science.