They can pick how much warming they want the model to show!
Antarcticice, that is a pretty vague chart, and the latest report has its own evaluation of AR4 models.
Looking at your chart, I see a .4C warming from 2000 to 2007. Looking at GISS, not even close, even with 1999 and 2000 being colder than 1998 and all years after by about .2C.
If models were accurate, it would be plain to see there is no "climate emergency." And all those fat grants would disappear. The latest IPCC report is the first to be silent on the consensus climate sensitivity. I wonder why.
BTW, you can bribe 97% of the climate community. The U.S. government has.
When the US Navy, the Russian and British navies report that the sea ice in the artic is 1/3 to 1/2 as thick as it was 50 years ago, and when this is confirmed by satellite observation one has to assume that warmer seawater, scientifically measured, has caused this effect. Other data confirms other effect of atmospheric heat retention and the movement of that heat to ice and seawater.
If you want to predict 'how fast' this movement will increase you could be wrong as predicting the future is always a tricky business. However there is no doubt that this 'warming driven' climate change is happening. ALL of the data, the science and the physics confirm that, and more to the point the rapid increase over historical time of our industrial driven atmospheric CO2 load is the prime mover of this progression.
Yawn, this is the same rubbish deniers have been peddling for a while, no surprise then that the source is Ross McKitrick (an economist) I presume this is the graph deniers have been referencing when they claim actual temperature rise has fallen below the models, which McKitricks graph shows.
Sadly the real graph of the models from AR4 (dating back to 2007) shows something else entirely
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Which is why McKitrick has averaged them together rather than show the individual sets to make it appear higher, I'm sure such playing with stats will escape deniers (or they won't care)
But the facts are we are in the midst of the IPCC models for where we are (2014) we are sitting on the projected line of the A2 model, which is one of the higher ones and have not fallen below these estimates.
McKitricks graph is rubbish and deniers who use it show they are not in anyway skeptics. As usual the reason you can't reference any science source is simply because you don't have any.
Oh my, that's amazing.
Look at a climate change denial website,
And you find posts that deny climate change.
Who'd'a thunk it?
For the same reason 97% of the non-alarmist models are wrong. Our climate models are not very good.
You can't bribe 97% of the world's climate scientists. You can bribe 3%.
Because climate sensistivity is basically 0.
This article will tell you why http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/21/is...
Modeling is difficult. It is not perfect. It is all we have.
Is there a model predicting no change?
'Fully 111 out of 114 models touted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted too much warming.' http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=853:bottom-falling-out-of-the-scientific-case-for-dangerous-climate-change
-----------------------
They are programmed to execute a predetermined outcome
