The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly

For nearly a week, a leaked draft of next year’s “Fifth Assessment Report” on climate change, by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has been burning up the blogosphere. Since it’s everywhere, I’ll take my liberties and join the party.

The most impressive figure shows how badly one of their most-cited series of predictions is faring.  Explanation follows.



The colored shading shows the projected range of global annual average surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in the succession of IPCC assessment reports, labeled “FAR” (First Assessment Report, 1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001) and AR4 (Fourth, 2007).  The “emissions scenarios” generally cover the range from each report during the period from 1990 to 2015, and the changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration that have been observed pretty much fall within this range.  The very large grey zone is irrelevant to the forecasts that were made.

The three small black rectangles each year are the observed global temperature histories in common use.  For every year except the last one (2011), the black “whiskers” are an estimate of the 90% confidence range for the observed temperature. Since the three records pretty much use the same data, I wouldn’t have a lot of faith in the reality of those whiskers. Data were not fully available for 2011, so any whiskers would not be comparable to the others. Quite obviously, for more than a decade, the observations have fallen near or below the lower end of the IPCC projected range. Houston, we have a problem.

Will this chart will be altered or disappear completely in the final IPCC report due in 2013? Consider what happened the last time around, in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

Read more at Forbes. By Patrick Michaels.


  1. Never underestimate our legislators ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Given enough money from the well funded environmental groups they will vote for anything. EPA regulations have been based on the IPCC 2007 report which has been shown to reach conclusions based on faulty data. We have to be especially diligent when it comes to the UN and the government. The UN is out to destroy the United States and they prefer to do it with our money. Members of congress are all too willing to abide them.

  2. Margaret Paddock says:

    What a rip off this has been and fat cats like Gore are despicable individuals and the worst offenders. His mansions waste more energy that blocks of housing for the general public.
    Obama & Michele waste more airline fuel on their vacations than is to be imagined to say nothing of Pelosi and her private jet that we were forced to pay for.

    This administration and their cronies are just wolves in sheep clothing waiting for the next opportunity to rip off the public. And the public that elected them are the sheep being led to slaughter but the biggest sin is they are taking the rest of us with them. Is it any wonder the rest of us are yelling and screaming? There is no other place to go and they are ruining our home.

  3. I believe the bottom line and that global warming is a hoax concocted by a few whealthy, savy money movers who then sold a bill of goods to many. Follow the money and you will see who continues to push the man made climate change agenda. The graph of the ipcc's 4 assessment reports,and the explanation of same are pretty vague. Without an indepth discussion of the above graph any significance is lost on myself . There are too many suppositions to allow for a comprehensive appraisal of the data. Congress and the UN are supposed to understand this and make a value judgement. Give me a break. If you are going to explain something to Congress…remember ( KISS) i.e. "Keep It Simple Stupid"

Speak Your Mind

Connect with Facebook