"....rather then enquire, you are saying to your self, please god let me be right."

No, I am saying "Please God, let me be not right"

Just a question re "...The NIPCC report concludes that from the current, real, recorded and agreed temperature data.."

Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from?

If the NIPCC works from non-peer reviewed "papers" its forecasts/projections/conclusions are not worth putting up against an organization's that are.

The rest of your diatribe is par for the course, irrational, and unworthy of response.

Luciferase,

>” The question is one of trajectory, not where we now sit.”

Trajectory is irrelevant. You can pick any trajectory you want by picking the period, duration and end points. This explains the flaw in your argument about trajectory: https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus

Another reason your trajectory argument is flawed is because the planet is in a long term cooling trend. It has been cooling for 50 million years, 1 million years, 8,000 years, etc. The temperature increase over the past 150 years, since the Little Ice Age, is consistent with other warm periods that occur at about 900 year intervals (Minoan, Roman, Middle Ages warm periods).

This new PNAS paper shows does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the ‘control knob’: (e.g. see Fig 4) http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167/F4.expansion.html

The chart Don Aitkin selected to use is similar to many others which all convey the same message: the climate models have been and still are over estimating future warming (e.g.: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/ and parts i and ii).

The estimates of ECS and TCR are coming down; IPCC is reluctantly starting to admit this.

RealClimate is an advocacy site projecting a doomsayers’ message. It’s not a credible source to refer to. Similarly with SkepticalScience.

>” If we do nothing, when the ice sitting on land (Antarctica, Greenland) melts, coupled with ocean-water expanded by higher temperature, we can expect significant a sea-level rise.”

That is simply arm waving, scaremongering and doomsaying if you do not state the timer scale. The consequences of IPCC’s projected sea level rise to 2100 is insignificant compared with cumulative global GDP over that time.

> Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from?>

The IPCC also draws from grey literature; e.g. WWF, Greenpeace, etc. AR4 contained over 8000 non peer reviewed citations and over 6000 non peer reviewed references http://accessipcc.com/.

The IPCC is a political organisation, with an agenda. All it says should be considered in that light.

Hi Luciferase,

Well at least you generated a question, pity you spoiled it by getting stuck into abuse again.

Question << Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from? >>

Yes, it is exactly the same data records used by both the scientists contributing to the IPCC and the NIPCC. If you read both reports and their references you can verify that for yourself. Both are peer reviewed, that’s what scientists do.

You said << If the NIPCC works from non-peer reviewed "papers" its forecasts/projections/conclusions are not worth putting up against an organization's that are. >>

No. That’s an “assumption close”. The NIPCC scientists use “peer review”. You’re mixing up “papers” with “data records”. Data is not “peer reviewed”, it is the accepted source for analysis and the temperature data is used by both groups of scientists.

I also stated that the NIPCC uses only the empirical data records “to date”, the real data records, they do NOT do forecasts or projections, that’s the difference with the IPCC. Why don’t you learn to read for pities sake.

You say << The rest of your diatribe is par for the course, irrational, and unworthy of response >>. OK, Where?

You still don’t get it, you still have not either read or comprehended my post. You have not read the IPCC AR5 or the NIPCC report and you have no answers to the question.

I conclude that I was right when I said “you don’t understand the processes, you don’t enquire, you are driven by “scare” induced emotion and you “want to believe”.

There will come a time when your pain of “believing” is greater than the pain of “walking away”. When the Cock crows thrice you will deny CAGW. When the AR5 came out I heard the second “Cock-a-doodle-dooooo”.

Not long now until you have to tell your friends, “Ah well, I never believed all that guff anyway”.

You need to stop “defending” your belief and start “interrogating” it.

Any more questions I might help you with?

Correction: 'Medieval Warm Period' not Middle Ages warm period

Peter Lang wrote:

"The chart Don Aitkin selected to use is similar to many others which all convey the same message: the climate models have been and still are over estimating future warming (e.g.: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/ and parts i and ii)."

You do realise Peter that the chart Don showed was a fudge by Roy Spencer? This can be easily identified by looking at the axes and the starting points of the model simulations and going back to look at the data.

Peter Lang further wrote:

"RealClimate is an advocacy site projecting a doomsayers’ message. It’s not a credible source to refer to. Similarly with SkepticalScience."

But Judith Curry is? How very convenient for you Peter.

But then given your ability to detect fudged graphs, perhaps it will be wise to not rely too heavily on your assessment of which sites are credible and which are not.

Agronomist,

Silly snark comments. Waste of space. You have shown you are not to be taken seriously.

All except the greenie extremists realise that RealClimate and SkepticalScience are simply advocacy sites. They were set up by public relations consultants and spin merchants, don't you know this? if not, do your research.

Judith Curry is a highly regarded climate scientist. But one of her main objectives is to try to get integrity and honesty back into climate science. You'd do well to expand your horizons beyond just the doomsayer sites you obviously inhabit and accept without question.

It is widely recognised that the climate models have been over estimating climate sensitivity and, therefore, temperature projections per emissions scenario. There are numerous charts been produced recently similar to the one Don selected. (And the dishonesty in the supposed correction and spin in the Real Climate version has also been exposed). Again, it seems you are unaware.

Perhaps, instead of the silly snarks, you'd be better spent getting up to date - but to do that you'll have to read beyond the doomsayer advocacy sites.