"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C."
So, it's totally ok to be off in prediction by over 100%? WTH???????
It's all so much guesswork, just read the article. Seriously, what a crock. Highlights for me include phrases like
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.
"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
The first one cracks me up, it's like economic news reporting here in the states, every increase in jobless numbers or drop in the dollar's value is "unexpected."
"If" should never appear in a science article, right? I mean, we report on what we know based on observations and data, I thought. maybe I misunderstand the whole "scientific method" thing.
So, Dr. Otto, you are saying that you are more wrong than you thought you were?
Who cares what anyone "would like?" for Pete's sake SCIENCE IS ABOUT DATA NOT FEELINGS YOU FAKE!
Uhm, what's "the issue of clouds?" That you haven't/can't/didn't account for them in your models? NASA (which has accepted the IPCC crap hook, line, and sinker) can't account for clouds, they are working on it, but it's too complex!!!!! Again, what a joke.