Alden Griffiths has another excellent presentation, this time dissecting Christopher Monckton’s claim that temperatures are below the IPCC’s projections.
When they have to create incorrect graphs and then lie about where the data comes from, especially when the real data is so easily examined, their goal is not to educate, not to enlighten but to mislead.
Griffiths’ presentation does an excellent job of walking through all the data, showing what was really written by the IPCC and how Monkton created his misleading graphics.
The take-home message is that the temperature since 2000 have moved within the range that the IPCC models showed. There is no deviation between what has occurred and what was predicted.
Anyone who says that there has been a difference is misleading at best and lying at worst. Here is the graph:
It is easy to see how Monkton creates a misleading graph – his IPCC cones are simply wrong. Here is a graph extending these cones out, with the actual IPPC model traces. You can easily see that Monkton’s cones do not actually capture the IPCC’s actual data, especially during the early years.
It appears that the cones that Monkton claims is the IPCC data do not include at least half of the actual IPCC data during the first 20 years or so and it consistently overshoots the actual data.
To claim that the pink curves represent the actual IPCC data is certainly misleading. Stating that the real data is lower than the models is certainly misleading. And using only one of the several scenarios discussed by the IPCC and claiming that is the IPCC data is also misleading.
Here is a graph showing the real data since 2000 with the real IPCC information:
As can be seen, the current observed temperatures are will within the 95% confidence levels expected. That is what makes something likely for scientists – that the numbers are within the 95% confidence levels.
So, none of the actual observed data since 2000 falls outside the expected ranges postulated from models by the IPCC.
Denier’s misuse data all the time. So, the first place to start with any of their graphs is that they are probably misusing data again. It is something that I might say with confidence has a 95% chance of being correct.