There is a chap call Clive Best who has a blog , and is a bit of geek. I mean this as a compliment; he is the sort of chap who is a serious scientist, and does serious sorts of calculations. He is neither a “warmist” nor a “denier”, and he is interested in the fine print of climate science.
He has recently done a comparison of IPCC predictions with recent actual data. Nothing all that startling here: there are loads of data which show that the warming stopped a while ago, and that actual temperatures have not tracked the predictions over the last decade or so. Here is Dr Best’s summary in graphical form:
What is more interesting is Dr Best’s calculations as to the likelihood that, as the warmists would have it, the recent failure of the world to warm up is just a short term statistical blip, and that the models which predict disaster unless we halt CO2 production are just fine and dandy. Here is what he says:
The trend speaks for itself. Predicted warming has not occurred and the actual temperatures are all more than one standard deviation below even the fixed 2000 CO2 levels (orange curve). All 6 annual temperatures lie below all scenario curves. The quoted error on a single measurement is 0.05 deg.C so we can now calculate the probability of these measurements being a statistical fluctuation.
year sigma probability 2006 1 0.32 2007 3 0.001 2008 4 0.0001 2009 2 0.04 2010 2 0.04 2011 6 <0.00001
The total probability that IPCC predictions are correct but the data points are just a fluctuation is vanishingly small ~ 10^-14 ! It is therefore possible to state with over 90% confidence that the IPCC 2007 model predictions are incorrect and exaggerate any warming.
The 90% here is just being polite. What he is saying is that the IPCC predictions are 99.9999999999% likely to be wrong. I have no way of knowing if he is right about this calculation, but it does seem to be interesting that a calculation suggests that the “temporary blip” line is highly unlikely.
Which does not sound very settled. As science goes.