I am not confused. You have been deceived.

See also : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Note also that the observations on the graph seem to end around 2013, missing the approximately 0.5C uptick since then.

If you go to the KNMI climate explorer you can fool around with models and observations to your heart's content, you'll notice that the mean of the CMIP5 ensemble used by the IPCC is now below the temperatures seen so far in 2016. Remember to use a sensible and common baseline.

I've just been doing that and gosh, turns out that the claims about the Russian model are a big fat bluff.

Radical Rodent

That's a good description of how the gases that absorb and reradiate IR help retain heat in a climate system. "Blanket effect" would probably be a better name for the insulating effect.

"Greenhouse effect" is less scientifically accurate, but like most such labels we are probably stuck with it.

Phil Clarke, Radical Rodent

IMHO the clearest comparison between the CMIP models and the observed temperature record is to be found on Ed Hawkins' website.

I particularly recommend the second graph, which includes both the original and forcing adjusted model projections.

Radical Rodent

I find "alarmist" as annoying as you find "denier". Should I therefore automatically reject anything written at BH or linked from any sceptic website?

The test is the quality of the science, not the quality of the insults.

EM,

Hawkins is reliable, but the last update was 6 months ago, and so misses the record March (and all the other new record months).

Try this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/

Alarmism is exaggerated or unfounded concern. Assume just for a second that the world's scientists are actually correct, then look at the feeble response and it seems to me that there is nothing exaggerated or unfounded about the concerns raised by most of those so labelled.

It's simple, Phil, either the models have run hot and I'm right or they've not and you're right. It is senseless to try to persuade you but it is amusing to see how you deceive yourself. I'm confident that independent observers, who examine this question for themselves, will see that the models have run hot.

This is a fundamental and well known problem with them. It is stunning that you attempt to argue otherwise.
================

Heh, and since there is resistance to fixing them they'll just continue to run hotter and hotter compared to the reality.
======================

Yup, it's the exaggeration that is the problem. This is from models running too hot and leads to alarm and catastrophism, when in fact, AGW is net beneficial.

That the alarmism has not been associated with the temperature rise expected is a big problem for the catastrophists. Hoi polloi is already neglecting further calls of alarm, as temperature isn't rising as the fearmongers predicted. The neglect will only get worse as this extraordinary popular delusion fades from public belief.

Do you actually link to Sou? Oh, boy.
==============

And RealClimate, a censored propaganda blog? Whew!
============

Phil Clarke 12.21am. "...there is nothing exaggerated or unfounded about the concerns raised by [alarmists]". Yeh, like the Statue of Liberty being submerged, no more snow, an ice-free Arctic, increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, droughts, rainfall, and diseases. Nothing positive, all doom, doom and a bit of gloom.

Cap fits.

I think we can all agree that when EM and PC become involved this site is far from being zombiefied. aTTP had a similar status but seems to have wandered off somewhere.

PC could you call upon some of your bigger buddies to help you (and us)?

EM the high quality of both the science and the insults are a feature of this establishment.

Kim twists and turns like a twisty turny thing. I posted the model/obs graph in response to the claim that the world has 'not warmed as expected'. The graph shows the model mean now below observations.

Now the claim shifts to the models have run hot. Well, yes over the projected period, whilst observations have remained within the 95% spread, there was a period, about 15 years, where observed temperatures stalled and the models were hot. Equally there was a period, the 15 years ending in 2005, where the observed trend was about 50% higher than the modelled. Over the long term, the models show enough skill to be useful.

Incidentally, speaking of predictions there was a poster named 'Kim' on Lucia's Blackboard who used frequently to end her posts 'We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know'

I wonder how that worked out' for the frequently-condescending 'Kim'?

Heh.

ACK, if you are going to quote me, please do not remove words, thanks.

Phil Clarke Ah, yes I did remove "most of" and that is indeed an important qualification. Sorry.

However it does suggest you believe 1) some labelled alarmists are indeed guilty of exaggerated or unfounded alarmism, 2) some of their statements are exaggerated or unfounded. But I have never seen you make any attempt to help us misguided souls (dare I say deniers) identify legitimate statements supported by "good" science from those made by crackpots. Which of the claims I listed do you support and which do you wish to be disassociated from? Please recall that some of those claims I identified as being alarmist reside within AR1-5 and presumably are supported by the consensus.

ACK, which of the claims in IPCC AR5 do you believe to be exaggerated or unfounded?

The bulk of your examples were from the media or opinion pages, secondary sources, where you will find exaggerations and distortions in both directions, just check out any climate opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

The 'no more snow' meme is a good example, I assume this is a reference to an opinion piece in The Independent featuring quotes from climatologist David Viner.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

Note two things

1. The words 'a very rare and exciting event' were from the scientist, the words ',within a few years' were added by the journalist, who was more usually found covering business stories.

2. None of the primary sources, the IPCC or the literature, were or were actually predicting the demise of UK snow any time soon.

Media-savviness is a good attribute to have.

To answer the question, Peter Wadhams predictions on Arctic ice are too out-there for me, and despite his eminence, not supported by the evidence. He's an outlier and the truth is scary enough without cherry-picking worst case scenarios. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Please do not try to fob us off with increased droughts, floods, tropical storms or tornadoes; ALL of this have reduced in frequency and intensity;

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3908.1
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.full.pdf

You could of course look for a study showing the economic costs of GW are less than the benefits. But I can save you some time, all such studies show the exact opposite.

Phil Clarke my complaint was that you have been very loath previously to criticize the more outlandish statements of alarmism (and eager to support alarmism from the high and mighty, like flooding of Manhattan). Now you have done so regarding Wadhams and the rarity of snow claim of Viner. My respect for you has increased.
I suggest you do not support David Viner so strongly. I heard him make essentially the same claim to undergraduates at UEA. In my opinion he is a 100% doomster.

ATTP has been a bit busy recently over at Climate Scepticism, repeatedly asking them to ban him. Very strange.

I have always had a lot of respect for Phil Clarke, but this maybe isn't his finest hour:

"Well, yes over the projected period, whilst observations have remained within the 95% spread, there was a period, about 15 years, where observed temperatures stalled and the models were hot. Equally there was a period, the 15 years ending in 2005, where the observed trend was about 50% higher than the modelled. Over the long term, the models show enough skill to be useful."

So, 15 years when the models were wrong, followed by 15 years when the models were wrong (in the other direction) but the models still show enough skill to be useful over the long term. Hmmm....