The Widening Gap Between Present Global Temperature and IPCC Model Projections

An increase in global temperature required to match the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections is becoming increasingly unlikely. A shift to a mean projected pathway of 3 degrees increase by the end of the century would require an immediate, large, and sustained increase in temperature which seems physically impossible.

Global surface temperatures have not increased at all in the last 18 years. The trend over the last few years is even falling slightly.

Global temperatures continue to track at the low end of the range of global warming scenarios, expanding a significant gap between current trends and the course needed to be consistent with IPCC projections.

On-going international climate negotiations fail to recognise the growing gap between the model projections based on global greenhouse emissions and the increasingly unlikely chance of those models being correct.

Research led by Ben Santer, compared temperatures under emission scenarios used to project climate change by the (IPCC) with satellite temperature observations at all latitudes.

“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.” reports their paper in PNAS. Moreover, it is not known why they are failing.

“The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive.”

Explaining why they are failing will require a commitment to skeptical inquiry and an increasing need to rely on the scientific method.

The unquestioning acceptance of projections of IPCC climate models by the CSIRO, Australian Climate Change Science Program, and many other traditional scientific bodies that has informed policies and decisions on energy use and associated costs must be called into question. So to must the long-term warming scenarios based on the link between emissions and increases in temperature.

32 Comments

  1. Jos December 10, 2012 1:57 pm

    Another paper drawing more or less similar conclusions.

    http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

    Cheers, Jos.

  2. John M December 11, 2012 12:55 am

    But then there’s this…

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/have-climate-change-projections-come-true

    It appears all is well with the models as long as one accepts the right amount of “natural variation”.

    • Davids99us December 11, 2012 1:36 am

      ROFL – the trend difference from the models is barely significant over 30 years, and these guys think a non-significant difference between models and temperatures over 12 years means something!  

      You cant have it both ways – say that there is too much variability to show inconsistency, then say that it is meaningful.  

  3. Pat Frank December 13, 2012 3:44 am

    The HadCRUT4 recently readjusted by UKMet, has a slightly cooler past and a gratifyingly warmer present — by about 0.2 C — than the previous anomaly trends. The new trend now nicely butts into Jim Hanson’s 1988 Scenario B, whereas it was badly undershot by previous HadCRUT anomaly trends.

    So, we mustn’t worry. If global anomaly temperatures don’t meet the IPCC projections now, be reassured that they will do in the future.

  4. enquiries January 18, 2013 4:30 am

    It’s not just a standstill.  It’s a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028.  Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained ..
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
    The following are excerpts ..
    “As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
    “At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
    “Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!”

    The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere.  This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun.  For more detail read my article “The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” easily found with Google.  I’ve also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
    Doug Cottonhttp://climate-change-theory.com

  5. xuyf May 21, 2013 9:03 am

    The auto engine system is a decisive factor in vehicle’s performance. The spark plugs and ignition distributor are major components of gasoline engine. We’d better change the spark plugs for at a time. The car turbocharger makes for air intake and exhaust. And the air filter can affect the performance of internal combustion engine.