Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 8:45pm:


"The President of the World Bank Group, is very clear in its foreword of the report : The explored consequences of an increase of the global earth temperature of 4°C are indeed devastating. "

From the report -

"For this report, results for RCP8.5 (Moss et al. 2010) from the new IPCC AR5 CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Proj-ect; Taylor, Stouffer, & Meehl 2012) climate projections have been analyzed. Figure 24 shows the full range of increase of global mean temperature over the 21st century, relative to the 1980–2000 period from 24 models driven by the RCP8.5 scenario, with those eight models highlighted that produce a mean warming of 4–5°C above preindustrial temperatures averaged over the period 2080–2100"

"RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future2. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature."

Zeke Hausfather in  Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3


Just more alarmist claptrap.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:26pm:


You have comprehension issues don't you?

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:


Further details because you obviously need them. They use Marine Air Temperature as a proxy for Sea Surface Temperature. 

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:49pm:



You are just whining because you can't see the truth of it. And it shows. Ad homs top AND bottom.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:



Using World Bank RCP8.5?

BTW - here is the RSS which is supposedly superior to UAH satellite data compared to climate models -

"To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the thick black line are the results from the most recent version of the RSS satellite dataset.  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band."

 
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

For some reason the image won't post.

Fig. 1.  Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The black line is the time series for the  RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)

Notice how divergent the series is becoming. The models barely scraping into the lower bounds.

"

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 9:24pm:



Have a look at the remss site I posted to Dna. They have picked the best 50 and they are diverging.

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

BTW - Why don't you like the NOAA data?
Year          Temp     Rank       
1983      0.43°C      11

2021      0.85°C      32

That's 1 month figures

12 month figures -

1983      0.28°C      6

2021      0.88°C      36

But you just post schitt you know nothing about. Why is that?

BTW - Why have you gone back to your 2013 shlock after being shown that the SST was correct?

Quote:


You are full of crap Lee. It is bleeding obvious where I got the number from.