Most of it is quite accurate. I, too, am 95% certain global temperatures will rise in the range of 1-6 C this century. It's a huge range. They lowered the bottom of the range to accomodate the recent "pause." They also raised the top of the range to disguise their changing consensus. On the topic of equilibrium climate sensitivity they are silent. It's the first report to not give a best estimate. They can't be wrong if they don't say.
Edit: That's right Rasin. They now admit the possibility of a linear increase while keeping the ignorant masses frightened (by raising the top end). It's really a clever trick. The "consensus used to to be 3 degrees. Now they are not saying where in the 1-6 degree range is the most likely outcome.
Wage slave,
Well done. Their new 1-6 actually places an interval that NOW includes a LINEAR increase. A linear increase that warmers here have insulted me for mentioning as a possibility.
In fact, this whole discussion becomes humorous. In a recent post, many warmers showed "evidence of warming" by showing 50 years of temperature data and performing a LINEAR regression.
This is how confident they truly are in their exponential increases and their "positive feedbacks". So confident that they use linear regression.
What are we even discussing now??? They have lost the argument. They can't scare the world with talk of a 1-1.3 degree rise in the next 100 years as would be expected with a LINEAR increase. They clearly do not believe their own hype of an exponential increase or they would be modeling the current rises with exponentials, not lines.
And this is ALL without even mentioning the "corrections" to the data that appear to have artificially increased the warming.
Temp rises with CO2 rises in a logarithmic manner. This is not debatable. It is KNOWN. The keeling curve is barely above linear. This is not debatable, it is known. Clearly the temp increases in the future would be at most linear and likely slightly less than linear. They have trouble even showing linear increases. What is there to debate?
They do not even address this problem and avoid the subject through insults and ad hominems. Its not like they are presenting evidence.
Sagebrush, why do you not use the same time frame for the trend line as you do for your data? - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut... Why did you only use 2002 to 2013 to plot the trend line?
Here is the 30 year data and trend line - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Its a fabrication . 100% wrong
It is yet another pos.
I want a refund!
