Shouldn't a "rolling 5 year average"exclude 2008 (winter months only)?
I like how you mentioned that the first 5 months of winter temps should be excluded. That is funny. I assume you are being ironic though because it is only winter for half the planet during those months.
Of course, the Southern Hemisphere was in summer until the end of March.
Yes, I was taking the "IPCC2001: lower bound of entire range" line to be the error bar.
I think the important thing to compare is the slope of the pink line
and the slope of the different IPCC projections.
Which one matches the closest? I'd eyeball it as slightly steeper than the black line,
but not nearly as steep as the dashed-red line. Does that seem right?
No, you cannot just compare the slope of the pink line and the slope of model ensemble projections. As Canuck eludes, the parameters for each scenario need to be considered. We do not qualify for the lower lines. Actually, we don't even qualify for the "highest published scenario" line. Our CO2 emissions have exceeded even those that were used for their top line which was their worst case scenario. To compare it to the lowest scenario line or the "IPCC2001: lower bound of entire range" line is to admit that the models did not account for CO2 properly. It is to admit that other parameters, perhaps those not included in the models like clouds, are more important.
In light of the models falsifying, the conclusions of the IPCC reports must also be ignored.
