95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

Definitely, although the evidence seems to point to warming as a greater risk than cooling. In addition, there is little evidence for the possibility of a catastrophic cooling capable of making the planet uninhabitable (and not just less ideal), whereas there is evidence that a runaway greenhouse effect could actually make the planet uninhabitable for humans (Venus).

Interesting article.

I disagree in methodology with the article on several fronts however. It basically boils down to them selecting IPCC predictions after the fact, and even after cherry picking what they compare with, they still adjust the data. Then they also cherry-pick what dataset to compare against. Even that is only enough to raise the observed level just above the lower bounds. Even then, I find that the data presented in their graphs does not look at all like a "remarkably good" prediction. But I disagree strongly with this way of evaluating the data. When evaluating a prediction made in the past you do not get to cherry pick out of a set of predictions, you ONLY get to pick the one you found most likely in the past. Second you most certainly do not get to adjust the prediction made in the past in any way. The article violates both. That means if you want to convince me, please unadjusted business-as-usual scenario only.

From the article:

> Figure 2 accounts for the lower observed GHG emissions than in the IPCC BAU projection, and compares its 'Best' adjusted projection with the observed global surface warming since 1990.

In case you're wondering, adjusted means adjusted by the author of the article (in december 2012). That's just unfair. Also "Best" does NOT mean the best scenario as set forth in the IPCC first assessment report, but the one he finds agrees with the data. This is bullshit. Cherry-picking predictions. Adjusting the results of you prediction AFTER the results are known. Sorry, but let me summarize my attitude here : fuck off.

Furthermore he cheats by omission : there are 2 major temperature records, and guess what, he uses the warmest measurement. Not mentioned anywhere in the article.

From the IPCC first assessment report (policymaker's section):

> under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.

If you simply take the recommendation from the policymaker's section, and evaluate the temperatures against that, an entirely different picture emerges. I don't intend to make a graph here, but let's summarize :

IPCC prediction in BAU scenario :

0.2 to 0.5 degrees rise per decade from 1990 to 2010

Now obviously there's various ways to calculate the actual temperature difference, but none of them see 0.2 degrees rise:

1990 vs 2000 : 0.03 degrees warmer in 2000 (and no, 1990 was not particularly warm, although 2000 appears to have been a relatively cold year. Taking 1999 or 2001 or even 2002 still doesn't fix their prediction though)

Average of the 90s versus average of 2000-2010: 0.13 degrees rise (this I find the "fairest" way of measuring, but it doesn't allow us to evaluate 2000-2010 yet)

Average of the first 2 years of the decade (meaning you can check accuracy for 2000-2010 as well)

1990 -> 2000 : 0.15 degrees warmer in 2000 2000 -> 2010 : 0.05 degrees warmer in 2010

I have made my own graphs of the situation (Ipython rocks !), and overlayed them on the actual pictures from the IPCC publications, and the simple observation is : we are currently below the 95% certainty interval of the BAU scenario in the IPCC FAR. And it is a matter of 0.9 degrees in 2010 (that is, the real observed temperature was 0.9 degrees below the lower bound set forth in the IPCC's report), which is more than the predicted rise during that period (in other words : the error is bigger than the prediction).

So sorry to say, but this article fixes up the data by cherrypicking from the FAR, adding in "adjustments" and yes, it seems to be able to come to a reasonable picture. I call bullshit on that methodology though, for obvious reasons. If you're defending your prediction made in 1990 you do not get to revise said prediction in any way. You also don't get to make 5 predictions in 1990, then pick the "average" from 2 of them and show it matches the data.

So perhaps I should be more explicit : comparing the current satellite temperature record to the IPCC FAR report's "Business as usual" scenario, without adjusting it, the temperature has been below the lower bound of the 95% certainty interval since 1994. After 1996 there hasn't been a single temperature peak in the IPCC's predicted bounds. They were wrong, and not just a little bit.

A similar problem occurs between my own evaluation of the IPCC's second third and fourth report (and the article doesn't look at the fifth, probably because there's not that much data to evaluate it). I find this article woefully unconvincing.

SourceWatch profile on Roy C. Spencer:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

"One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also home to AGW denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website.

While you have to start somewhere, this illustrates the larger point. Some basic facts about the scale of the problem remain:

"The total volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi)[7] with an average depth of 3,682 metres (12,080 ft).[8]"

> 3x10^8 cubic miles vs 3x10^3 instruments

> Instrument cannot reach even ~average depth

> 10 years of data

Certainly, it is a start. But...

There is a huge amount about the oceans that we do not know and cannot measure with requisite precision. Understanding the difference between surface temperatures and the actual thermal potential of the earths oceans are two different tasks. EG, due to sub-surface thermal venting there are many areas of the deep ocean that don't at all look like surface temps. {etc} So there is huge potential for the oceans to do unexpected things. For all we know, plate tectonics may be driving huge amounts of thermal energy variation in the deep ocean...and a "proper climate model" would likely need to understand this at some stage. This really goes to the core of the question of the oceans as a heat-sink.

This is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks.

"I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue."

It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a .

As I am sure you would appreciate.