The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean.
This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models that are used for 100 year projections have failed after after 15 years and are running too hot.
It should be cause for celebration. The highest warming scenarios are considerably less likely.
This also does not mean that an emissions tax and spending on R&D on low emissions energy sources is unwise. But it should be factored into cost benefit analysis of climate change response.
Ultimately response to climate change is a public policy problem and is not just based on scientific data and projections.
Really, the response boils down to one question, how much is each of us willing to pay per year to respond? $10, $100, $1000, $10000?
Ok, so you're citing three pictures on a blog. I guess I'm supposed to be 300% more convinced?
But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here.
The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/
The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean.
This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models that are used for 100 year projections have failed after after 15 years and are running too hot.
It should be cause for celebration. The highest warming scenarios are considerably less likely.
This also does not mean that an emissions tax and spending on R&D on low emissions energy sources is unwise. But it should be factored into cost benefit analysis of climate change response.
Ultimately response to climate change is a public policy problem and is not just based on scientific data and projections.
Really, the response boils down to one question, how much is each of us willing to pay per year to respond? $10, $100, $1000, $10000?