Iceagenow Blog Complains that Record Lows Are Being Ignored

[toronto blizzard]

I'm incorrect because I'm incorrect . Nice reasoning as to why you think that.

[Msalgado]

I did not say that. Try again.

[FloridaJohn]

Keep scrolling down to read the whole thing

Oh be quiet would you. Again the NCDC climate data cannot be taken seriously as it has been manipulated to be biased warmer than it should be. End of story

It is interesting that you are concerned about manipulated data, but use a blog full of misleading charts as justification for your position.

Using a graph with a scale of +/- 12 degrees to "show" how small the warming has been is quite misleading. Doesn't that bother you?

[toronto blizzard]

It is interesting that you are concerned about manipulated data, but use a blog full of misleading charts as justification for your position.

Using a graph with a scale of +/- 12 degrees to "show" how small the warming has been is quite misleading. Doesn't that bother you?

How is it misleading? Please tell me

[toronto blizzard]

how is Toronto Blizzard still adding crap to this subforum?

Excuse me. You call this crap. You guys are just being downright ignorant right now and don't want to believe the true facts.

[OSUmetstud]

How is it misleading? Please tell me

the trend line is in the wrong spot, plus given the spread and how small the data set was posted...it has no statistical significance.

[PhillipS]

What a shock to see the CO2 graph that was used in Al Gores documentry being posted by a AGW supporter. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The fact that CO2 has been at it's highest levels in 650,000 years doesn't mean for one second that it is responsible for the GW that has been observed. Also are you trying to ignore the fact that NASA has been caught manipulating data? because are you damn wrong about that.

More conspiracy ranting - really, is that the best you can do? Seems rather sad and desperate but I guess if you don't have any data to support your delusions then you use what you have.

Well, your unsupported (and frankly comical) opinion is noted.

[toronto blizzard]

More conspiracy ranting - really, is that the best you can do? Seems rather sad and desperate but I guess if you don't have any data to support your delusions then you use what you have.

Well, your unsupported (and frankly comical) opinion is noted.

Oh i can back up my thoughts I just don't have time right now but as i said earlier Snowlover123 has posted many links to papers and charts that show GW is more natural than anthropogenic. You just don't want to believe that it's more natural.

[LocoAko]

This guy has got to be pure troll.

[toronto blizzard]

This guy has got to be pure troll.

Whatever

[TerryM]

Snowlover, you've made a convert.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why do people with zero respect or interest in the actual scientific process sign up to be members on science forums?

Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I think it explains a lot of what we see from the pseudo-skeptical side.

From the article:

The

Dunning–Kruger effect

is a

cognitive bias

in which unskilled individuals suffer from

illusory superiority

, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a

metacognitive

inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

^[1]

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self,

whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

Which of our regular posters does that remind you of?

I spent my entire life up until the last say 2 years like that. Until I got more serious about where I said and proved to myself the level that I belong to. Then I realized how large of a gap there can be.

I grew up with 6-7 close friends from ages 7-8 to early to mid 20s. All of them but 1 were near genius level IQ or higher. I was always running in the middle of the pack, as I got into my mid 20s I started to move passed those levels, not just with age and the experience factor..I got help for my ADD and my IQ jumped from near genius level to over it.

I actually still sit here and this overwhelming feeling of doubt, like incredible self doubt creeps in just thinking about it. I posted numbers on multiple tests that place me in a position that for me is hard to accept. But now it's clear in real life, I know some smart smart folks..but one guy I know is very very gifted in both emotional intelligence(intuition, perceptions, conceptions) that is my main gift. I can read situations, people, things, ideas, patterns at will...or my brain out of no where will throw together. I also think in terms of scale..from the outer walls of the Universe to the Earth, to my local city. My brain doesn't look at anything in a tunnel, no individual thoughts, it's all on a string. It is why with no formal education, before I laid my eyes on any research paper, I was able to nearly break the arctic system down and nearly completely understand it without needed anything but a few graphs.

I can see the next angle that wasn't seen before, or create all new angles and ideas on what's what. And understand it, If I get stumped then I bear down and LEARN. EVERY DAY ALL DAY LEARN LEARN LEARN.

Then new concepts and perceptions form to better the old ones, or create all new strings of thought.

I became an atheist at 8 year old on my own. I never believed in Santa Clause as far as I remember, even when I was 4 years old my Grandparents had a friend dress as Santa. The entire time I kept saying your not real, it's impossible for you to live in the North Pole because you would freeze to death. Then I was told Santa has a special palace, my answer was that is not possible because other people would have it to and mostly everyone dies by 100 or so at the most, I knew that by kindergarten. I remember having nightmares at 6 and 7 after reading the Sun would die in 4.5 billion years I would cry and get sick from thinking the Earth will be destroyed. Then they sent me to Sunday School, I managed to make it through week 1 because all we did was regular school games. But week 2 we read the children's genesis. And when it was my turn to try and read out-loud, I wouldn't read it because I knew it was complete bull****. A magical invisible god created the massive Earth, Sun, solar system, and galaxy in what 6 days? yeah, that is dumb as bleep and I remember going to school so excited to tell everyone that I figured out that god wasn't real, I was beat up twice for that. Those same now 30 year old adults are still going around getting on there knees worshiping a god in church and teaching there kids genesis.

I met/dated/just talk to a thousand women of all shapes, sizes, and none of them could match the level of existence I think on, until I met my current GF 4.5 years ago, it was magical to finally meet a woman that could see eye to eye with what I am about. From Terry, Phillip, Dabize, I know you guys know what I mean. It's not like you want to go around telling everyone 98-99% of humans can't reach the level of thought you live on at any point in life. More important than that, I know there are millions of people well above me. And when I meet one I can tell off the bat they are further up, and I go from the primary thinker to secondary thinker and primary listener.

That is the most weird part..as the bell curve goes up. 80 percent of humans mostly sit on a rather even playing field with a slight but slowly increasing plain of existence then an acceleration curve takes over and while yes nearly everyone in the top 1-5 percent can understand most or all discovered concepts.

Folks like us almost always will take a backseat with respect for another who will teach us more to continue to ascend towards his level and beyond. But quickly when you drop out of the top 5-10% it flips. The amount or percentage of folks who over-rate themselves in an arrogant blind manner rise faster and faster then when you get really down there, it's changes again where the folks in the bottom 20-60% are more accepting of there limits.

As we move into the next stage say 70-90%, we get the savvy business man, lot's of numerical intelligence. Every job I have ever had I was the smartest person there at 18, 20, 25, and now.

My current job has people with Master's degree's who are paid 6 figures to make sure production is maximizes, that sales are maximized, employee needs are taken care of and so on. A few months ago our new GM was working around me and over heard me talking to another co-worker and he went to my direct manager and asked him who I was and how a Man who broke down the production area on a whim in 5 min that ended up cutting down over a dozen hours of wasteful time in a week, this after the company brought in 3 Men in their 40s and 50s with Masters Degree's to over see production and make it more efficient, it was a joke. they are not able to come to work everyday and just do there job while their sub conscious or even conscious mind is analyzing the situation and system. They spent 10, 20, maybe 30 year learning through trial an error and while I am a huge fan of trial and error. They were limited by what they taught themselves through repetition, experience, practice. They used those techniques and skills and improved things. They were released of there duty, the new system was implemented. After 40 min of it I was ready to bang my head int the wall. Becase when something was wrong, or not as efficient as it could be, I didn't actively seek out answers, they just start showing up. I believe this is due to my ADD subtype which is 5-10 percent of ADD people, the other 90-95% have ADHD. I have ADD. The difference is my ADD makes everything in the world seem bland quickly. By 22-25, I was done with the normal social structure and became reclusive except to my close family and woman. Because I had to live how I was built to live. Which is to hunt and gather. Fight or Flight makes me feel natural, it's the realm of clarity. The more desperate the situation the more stimulating and it's like my brain goes off into a mode where whatever I am doing, working at my job, reading weather charts to understand it, hell being a parent, I constantly become more efficient. My Three hobbies is the science of climate/weather and science in general, Halo Reach because the speed and intensity cause my brain to go into overdrive and continually get better, faster, more intelligent. And lastly my endless arm of love, compassion, and empathy for life and our species. I have a unheathy drive to understand and help learn how to better life as we know for all living creatures. That post I made in the Sea Ice thread about the Humans and the backdrop for how this came to be, it was the cliff notes version, but it was very insiteful but for me it's strange I pulled all of it out of my ass in less than 10 min or so. As if my brain if it was in our physical world would be a man walking and stepping stones appear under his feat as he walks over a canyon but doesn't fall because his brain is putting together a piece of the puzzle.

The largest difference on this board between the members is some of us, and I am the King of it, don't copy and paste blog posts, or endless papers on one subject that was written by someone else. I sit down and decide what I am going to cover and I use the data and almost 99 percent of the time, I use my own words, my own thoughts, and put it together and present it through what I come up with.

I will go out and gather Solar w/m2 anomaly charts, buoy data from 2012 back as far as I can find. Snow cover data, albedo data, ice cover data, and thickness, age, and so on, temperature charts, historical snow and ice data, GHG data, solar TSI data, look through past weather patterns for reference and on and on and on. We add it all up and we can start projecting what comes from here or there or whatever. And present a BOSS well planned arguement that is founded in all of the data using logical reasonable analysis to piece the data together and we get our answers that have error deviations but are very well supported and founded.

The reply: The +AMO is the cause of the sea ice decline. When it goes -in 2015, wait, let me check Anthony Watts, ok 2015-2018, wait let me check JB, ok, the AMO is going negative this decade and the Earth is going to cool.

Really? This is what we deal with, everyday, almost everyday blanket ignorant non substantiated, non supportive statements, predictions, projections about the AMO are thrown around in response to not only real time data, to the well put together ideas of members of this board that typically incorporates real time data, and the endless data from thousands and thousands of well supported peer reviewed work of the in field degreed climatologists.

I have posted so much data from scientists who go to the arctic on the Healy, St. Laurent, other boats, use helicopters for more precise ice thickness mapping and all of the other endless work they do. They are there, they publish papers others publish papers on their work, their work validates piomas, there insitu measurements show warmer ice, warmer SSTs(off the charts now), higher salinity, more intense glacial retreat, and calving, papers showing this incredible 25-200M warm layer that has come from the Sun that helps 3M+ ice melt which just 7 years ago was unprecedented. We have 50-100 buoys giving real time data, moorings, and still the same posters dismiss it, blame the AMO, post horribly inaccurate sea ice thickness charts that the Navy admits can be 1-2M to thick in MYI and 1M or less to thick in FYI, which is terrible inaccurate, people are shown 7 months of newly calibrated data that matched Piomass within a small SD range, the Piomas crew and the Cryosat crew both validate this but it's completely dismissed by people posted black and white charts from the 90s before massive divergence took place between any sun correlation, AMO correlation. The PDO has been negative now 63% of the months since 1998, but that is totally pissed out the window and they use NOAA or whomever stated it went negative in 2007-08 but when those places show warming they don't like it's a conspiracy.

Using the blanket term alarmist there is not one that I am aware of that:

1. Believe the -PDO hasn't and isn't having a cooling effect on global temperatures.

2. Believe the solar min didn't attribute to slowing of OHC gains, global temperatures, lowering global ssts, Or other ways it can effect the climate.

3. the Rebuttal is either Alarmist ignore natural variance, which when called out on the accuser never says another word about it. Or now we are being told the Sun is on a 7-8 year lag. So we apparently are in the 2004-05 Solar regime right now. yeah.

to end this long post.

What I don't get is a normal life, all of my relationships get strained and take immense work and energy. I ruined my credit, my finances, driving court issues, keeping up with bills and responsibilities and so on. It's a big trade off, but I would rather live everyday for the betterment of mankind, myself and others around me than to narrowly live in a tunnel of misinterpreted life.

[FloridaJohn]

How is it misleading? Please tell me

Sure, no problem.

First, here is the graph in question (image is not showing in post, you'll have to click on the link to see it):

http://www.c3headlin...r-century-.html

When you look at this graph, it shows what appears to be a very small amount of temperature rise compared to a very large change in CO2. From this graph, the blog post goes on to describe how there can be no relation between CO2 and temperature because there is little change in the blue line and big changes in the grey line.

There are a couple problems with this method, but first let me point out that the blue line is a five year average of temperature chages from the previous 15 years. In other words, he is first comparing any year's temperature to the temperature 15 years before, and then taking a five year average of that difference. Even after doing all that, I can still see the blue line is higher on the right side of the chart than it is on the left side of the chart. But why go through all that contorted manipulation? Why not just use the temperature record? The reason, of course, is to downplay the changes in temperature.

What you asked specifically about, though, was why using a +/- 12 degree F scale was misleading, and the reason is because it graphically minimizes the amount of temperature change, while using a 290-400 ppm scale for the CO2 concentration graphically maximizes the CO2 concentration. This gives an incorrect picture that temperatures do not correlate to CO2 concentration.

Let's look at a couple graphs where the scales on both data sets are maximized to better show the changes. First up, is a graph showing just US temperatures. This is from the National Climatic Data Center, the same place the data from your graph is from:

See how the temperature scale only goes from 49 degrees F to 57 degrees F? That is only an eight degree change from the top of the chart to the bottom, much smaller than the 24 degree F change in your graph. This results in a more visible change. Also, the temperatures used in the graph are averaged in a much more standard method, by year instead of compared to a temperature 15 years earlier.

But, of course, if you are having a discussion about global warming, you should include global temperatures. Using a smaller geographic area to create charts is usually used to hide or downplay certain aspects of the record (i.e show cooling when the world is actually warming). So here is a chart similar to the one you posted, that is using global temperatures and CO2 concentration together. In this chart, they are using temperature anomalies instead of actual temperatures. Temperature anomalies are used because it shows the departure from normal, which is what we are concerned with (i.e. how much higher or lower is the temperature from "average").

Notice that the temperature anomaly scale only goes from -0.4 to +0.6, and the CO2 concentration scale goes from 280 to 400 (basically the same as your graph) Now you can more readily see a high correlation between temperatures and CO2 concentration. Plus these are global temperatures so they are more representative of the overall warming.

I hope this helps you understand why you need to pay attention to the scales on each side of a graph to make sure you are seeing what someone is actually showing you. This a common ploy people use to try to obfuscate the truth, or to downplay one data set and enhance another data set. This is true not only in the scientific fields, but you will also see it in advertisements and politics. It is a useful skill to be able to discern where you might possibly be led astray.

[LocoAko]

Sure, no problem.

First, here is the graph in question (image is not showing in post, you'll have to click on the link to see it):

http://www.c3headlin...r-century-.html

When you look at this graph, it shows what appears to be a very small amount of temperature rise compared to a very large change in CO2. From this graph, the blog post goes on to describe how there can be no relation between CO2 and temperature because there is little change in the blue line and big changes in the grey line.

There are a couple problems with this method, but first let me point out that the blue line is a five year average of temperature chages from the previous 15 years. In other words, he is first comparing any year's temperature to the temperature 15 years before, and then taking a five year average of that difference. Even after doing all that, I can still see the blue line is higher on the right side of the chart than it is on the left side of the chart. But why go through all that contorted manipulation? Why not just use the temperature record? The reason, of course, is to downplay the changes in temperature.

What you asked specifically about, though, was why using a +/- 12 degree F scale was misleading, and the reason is because it graphically minimizes the amount of temperature change, while using a 290-400 ppm scale for the CO2 concentration graphically maximizes the CO2 concentration. This gives an incorrect picture that temperatures do not correlate to CO2 concentration.

Let's look at a couple graphs where the scales on both data sets are maximized to better show the changes. First up, is a graph showing just US temperatures. This is from the National Climatic Data Center, the same place the data from your graph is from:

See how the temperature scale only goes from 49 degrees F to 57 degrees F? That is only an eight degree change from the top of the chart to the bottom, much smaller than the 24 degree F change in your graph. This results in a more visible change. Also, the temperatures used in the graph are averaged in a much more standard method, by year instead of compared to a temperature 15 years earlier.

But, of course, if you are having a discussion about global warming, you should include global temperatures. Using a smaller geographic area to create charts is usually used to hide or downplay certain aspects of the record (i.e show cooling when the world is actually warming). So here is a chart similar to the one you posted, that is using global temperatures and CO2 concentration together. In this chart, they are using temperature anomalies instead of actual temperatures. Temperature anomalies are used because it shows the departure from normal, which is what we are concerned with (i.e. how much higher or lower is the temperature from "average").

Notice that the temperature anomaly scale only goes from -0.4 to +0.6, and the CO2 concentration scale goes from 280 to 400 (basically the same as your graph) Now you can more readily see a high correlation between temperatures and CO2 concentration. Plus these are global temperatures so they are more representative of the overall warming.

I hope this helps you understand why you need to pay attention to the scales on each side of a graph to make sure you are seeing what someone is actually showing you. This a common ploy people use to try to obfuscate the truth, or to downplay one data set and enhance another data set. This is true not only in the scientific fields, but you will also see it in advertisements and politics. It is a useful skill to be able to discern where you might possibly be led astray.

[donsutherland1]

Outstanding post, FloridaJohn.

[ORH_wxman]

The conspiracy theories are ridiculous....however, there still remains a very legit scientific discrepency between the majority of skeptic views and that of the "accepted" IPCC forecast of global temperatures over the next 9 decades.

The IPCC models of "business as usual" for CO2 emmissions is almost certainly biased too high...we cannot say for sure yet, but its not looking good for that GCM scenario to be accurate. It will probably fall out of the 95% confidence level within 2-3 years. It has already fallen out of the 90% confidence interval. The GCMs do not provide much confidence as they generally fail to reproduce the global temp fall from the 1940s through the 1970s and many assume the 1975-2000 warming period as the baseline to start their warming going forward despite recent peer reviewed literature that shows a significant amount of the warming (around 30-40%) in that time frame was due to natural variation.

None of this "disproves" AGW...which isn't where most of the debate lies anyway. But the magnitude of the AGW certainly is where much of it lies. When the GCMs that are the basis for a significant amount of this reviewed science are consistently shooting too high, then there is reason to doubt some of these projections.

This isn't even tackling the speculation that has become more prevalent on actual weather phenomenon being a result of AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

The conspiracy theories are ridiculous....however, there still remains a very legit scientific discrepency between the majority of skeptic views and that of the "accepted" IPCC forecast of global temperatures over the next 9 decades.

The IPCC models of "business as usual" for CO2 emmissions is almost certainly biased too high...we cannot say for sure yet, but its not looking good for that GCM scenario to be accurate. It will probably fall out of the 95% confidence level within 2-3 years. It has already fallen out of the 90% confidence interval. The GCMs do not provide much confidence as they generally fail to reproduce the global temp fall from the 1940s through the 1970s and many assume the 1975-2000 warming period as the baseline to start their warming going forward despite recent peer reviewed literature that shows a significant amount of the warming (around 30-40%) in that time frame was due to natural variation.

None of this "disproves" AGW...which isn't where most of the debate lies anyway. But the magnitude of the AGW certainly is where much of it lies. When the GCMs that are the basis for a significant amount of this reviewed science are consistently shooting too high, then there is reason to doubt some of these projections.

This isn't even tackling the speculation that has become more prevalent on actual weather phenomenon being a result of AGW.

I must disagree with you on the bolded in particular. I can not understand where the idea comes from that computer modeling of future climate change forms the basis for AGW.

The fundamental basis for AGW is founded in the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the radiative physics which determines the "Planck temperature response" (before any secondary feedback) and the estimated range for equilibrium climate sensitivity (Planck + feedback). ~2C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2.

I will be the first to tell you models do not represent reality. I believe the models do a better job than you do, but that is besides the point. Confidence in AGW derives from fundamental, empirical research which in the case for climate sensitivity leaves a rather wide range for most likely values. That uncertainty is readily acknowledged by everyone who speaks seriously of the current scientific understanding.

The inherent uncertainty is what is most troublesome, not the imprecision of climate models. The difference between a climate sensitivity of 2C and 4.5C is a whole world of difference. We are taking a big risk in choosing to do nothing in the hope that climate sensitivity turns out to be on the low end of what we currently deem the most likely range of probability.

Don't place so much emphasis on the models, they are nothing but a tool.....not the end all be all of our understanding.

[TerryM]

The BAU models didn't make allowances for the Montreal Protocol. Getting rid of HFCs made a big difference - and proved nations could work together.

Terry

[ben4vols]

Don't place so much emphasis on the models, they are nothing but a tool.....not the end all be all of our understanding.

What??? What other field of science works like this? The physics isn't wrong but the assumptions are grossly wrong. Laughably wrong. Painfully wrong. etc. GCM's hindcasted one period mostly correct and that is the last warming period. 30 years out of 110 ain't bad eh?? Then you have the temperature manipulation to contend with. If temperatures had not been manipulated the GCM's would have predicted 0 out of 110 years correctly. The manipulation of Arctic temps alone throws the whole global temperature record out of whack and givea a stronger warming signal than there should be.

[PhillipS]

What??? What other field of science works like this? The physics isn't wrong but the assumptions are grossly wrong. Laughably wrong. Painfully wrong. etc. GCM's hindcasted one period mostly correct and that is the last warming period. 30 years out of 110 ain't bad eh?? Then you have the temperature manipulation to contend with. If temperatures had not been manipulated the GCM's would have predicted 0 out of 110 years correctly. The manipulation of Arctic temps alone throws the whole global temperature record out of whack and givea a stronger warming signal than there should be.

All scientific disciplines use models as tools. Can an astrophysicist drop a sun into a black hole to see what happens - or does he use a physics -based model? Or can a biologist release an invasive species into a region to measure its effect on the ecology - or would he use a model instead?

Can you name a single recognized field of science that does not use models? Just one will suffice.

[ORH_wxman]

I must disagree with you on the bolded in particular. I can not understand where the idea comes from that computer modeling of future climate change forms the basis for AGW.

The fundamental basis for AGW is founded in the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the radiative physics which determines the "Planck temperature response" (before any secondary feedback) and the estimated range for equilibrium climate sensitivity (Planck + feedback). ~2C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2.

I will be the first to tell you models do not represent reality. I believe the models do a better job than you do, but that is besides the point. Confidence in AGW derives from fundamental, empirical research which in the case for climate sensitivity leaves a rather wide range for most likely values. That uncertainty is readily acknowledged by everyone who speaks seriously of the current scientific understanding.

The inherent uncertainty is what is most troublesome, not the imprecision of climate models. The difference between a climate sensitivity of 2C and 4.5C is a whole world of difference. We are taking a big risk in choosing to do nothing in the hope that climate sensitivity turns out to be on the low end of what we currently deem the most likely range of probability.

Don't place so much emphasis on the models, they are nothing but a tool.....not the end all be all of our understanding.

We'll agree to disagree...the climate sensitivity they input into the models is a major issue and is likely what will cause them to be incorrect on the high side.

[Vergent]

We'll agree to disagree...the climate sensitivity they input into the models is a major issue and is likely what will cause them to be incorrect on the high side.

The high side? Which model?

[ORH_wxman]

The high side? Which model?

I was talking about temperatures.

[ben4vols]

The high side? Which model?

Nice cherry pick.

[ben4vols]

All scientific disciplines use models as tools. Can an astrophysicist drop a sun into a black hole to see what happens - or does he use a physics -based model? Or can a biologist release an invasive species into a region to measure its effect on the ecology - or would he use a model instead?

Can you name a single recognized field of science that does not use models? Just one will suffice.

You completely missed the point. Yes, all fields use models, but what happens in most fields when the model output is no where close to observations?

[WeatherRusty]

We'll agree to disagree...the climate sensitivity they input into the models is a major issue and is likely what will cause them to be incorrect on the high side.

Even at 2C per doubling of CO2?

That would be only 0.8C above the Planck response and would represent a rather low feedback sensitivity.

[ORH_wxman]

Even at 2C per doubling of CO2?

That would be only 0.8C above the Planck response and would represent a rather low feedback sensitivity.

2C is their low end bound and I could see that happening by 2100, though I think I'd favor slightly under that at this point. Their business as usual scenario had a mean of 3.6C of warming above 1990-1999 mean temps by 2100...their A1B scenario was about 2.8C.

[WeatherRusty]

You completely missed the point. Yes, all fields use models, but what happens in most fields when the model output is no where close to observations?

How can you say the model output of global temperature is no where close to observations when only a very short period of observation has taken place relative to the outcome which may not be fully realized for a hundred years or more?

How far out of bounds are current temps relative to a net anthropogenic radiative forcing of 1.6W/m^2 bolstered by another 0.12W/m^2 of solar forcing? Remember also that the global temperature has not fully equilibrated to that forcing as evidenced by the existing positive energy imbalance at the TOA.

The answer is not much!

[ben4vols]

How can you say the model output of global temperature is no where close to observations when only a very short period of observation has taken place relative to the outcome which may not be fully realized for a hundred years or more?

How far out of bounds are current temps relative to a net anthropogenic radiative forcing of 1.6W/m^2 bolstered by another 0.12W/m^2 of solar forcing? Remember also that the global temperature has not fully equilibrated to that forcing as evidenced by the existing positive energy imbalance at the TOA.

The answer is not much!

How much warming would have to occur to catch up to model predictions? When you figure that we are likely headed for 2 or 3 decades of stagnating if not cooling global temps, we are only going to get further from predicted.

[ben4vols]

2C is their low end bound and I could see that happening by 2100, though I think I'd favor slightly under that at this point. Their business as usual scenario had a mean of 3.6C of warming above 1990-1999 mean temps by 2100...their A1B scenario was about 2.8C.

CO2 emissions are outpacing even A1B aren't they?