a look at ANOTHER accurate chart by the IPCC.
Another chart that seems to pop up over and over again is this one:
Hegerl, G.C., F.W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner, and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and attributing climate change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, pp. 663-745.
Dole, R. and M. Hoerling, 2008: Introduction. In: Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change. [Dole, R., M. Hoerling, and S. Schubert (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, pp. 5-10.
And this picture made me think - "I've seen this chart before".
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (figure SPM.4)
Didn't post this one - too large.
If you doubt it, look for yourself.
But I do have a portion of the image shown below.
This is the lower left corner, one called "Global":
Looks the same, doesn't it?
Except for that "temp F/temp C" axis.
Compared side by side:
So one should ask: how can the same picture show both ACTUAL in F, and ANOMALIES in C?
Might look at the references for this one...
But before we do, let's see if there's another IPCC chart that shows actual degrees in F.
How about this one:
Yep, shows degrees in F. And, it's reputable - it comes from NOAA/NCDC. So, what's the problem?
Look again at that degrees F chart. Look at the 1900 area. See the level of that black line?
It shows that the degrees F went down to about 56F.
Not according to NOAA/NCDC. They show a dip to just about 57F.
So, what about that rise in the 1949 time range? The first chart shows a peak of just over 57F.
Not according to NOAA/NCDC. They say the peak was about 58F.
And a third place. Look at the 2000 area of the first chart. Just grazing 58F.
NOAA/NCDC? Their chart shows the temps well over that.
So it appears the first chart IS NOT following the degrees F that the NOAA/NCDC has.
What does it follow, and what does the reference say?
A further look at the IPCC
In the last discussion of the IPCC 2100 "CO2 emissions scenario", we were left with this:
Well, that made it hard to see exactly how the CO2 is rising (because of the seasonal variations). And, rest assured, as soon as the seasonal variation takes the level over their "projection", they'll claim victory.
Since the "high" scenario was way out of the park, let's use use Mauna Loa's Seasonally Adjusted Levels, to see how close they are to their "low" projection:
Close to the same climb, but consistently LOWER than their projection.
Seems like they're still not going to meet their projection on time.
We'll keep an eye on it...