...
Again, the graphs you linked were designed in 2011 to demonstrate that 1990 (actually 1980s) models were producing projections that were ballpark good enough to base short/mid-range public policy decisions upon (a position I agree with), not to determine whether or not the scientists (much less the politicians who actually produce public policy) have been surprised by the speed and strength with which climate has been changing over the last quarter century or so.
Which to my understanding is at the root of the issues between MacDoc and our new guest, and the topic being addressed.
I see. I only intended to address the theme related to the misrepresentation of OlivierK's as he told and not the larger topic within such misrepresentation was happening.
About the topic of scientist being surprised by the changing climate over the last 25 years, that's subjective to say the least. I have some little story to refer, though. I'm lazy to track it back but you may find posts of mine here about two or two and a half years ago, in those times when the mythical "pause" was a presence, regarding my collaboration with a work group researching deep systemic connections in the triggering of El Niño episodes. I once wrote here "we" were getting two outputs: one that suggested a medium episode of El Niño starting soon and then easing slowly, another suggesting the false start of that episode to lately, by December, develop into a strong and prolonged episode with strong consequences.
I told that moment that a system that offers two distinct path has little use and declined to follow that up. But it happened the second path was the real one the last episode took -of course, it's easy to retell the story in hindsight and select the week it pointed to the episode as it was, and suppressing the bit telling that a pretty strong La Ñiña was going to develop later, what is still to be seen and not extremely likely now-.
I mean, that research left the participant convinced that developments east of Drake Passage are much less important than expected and the part of the "hub" (the particular profile of water temperatures at all depth around Antarctica that starts in Rio de Janeiro, gives a turn around the planet and ends at Cape Horn) in the southern Atlantic is much more important than expected -that my expectation- with Agulhas having a paramount role -what I wasn't expecting to be that strong- and other structures like Malvinas (Falklands) Current being more the canary in the coal mine than a causal path crossroads -to my dissapointment-.
I mean, there's a lot it is being learnt all the time, but there's a Darwinian aspect in all what is published and taken as correct: they're just unambiguous, and that doesn't mean they are the best. It's like using a skateboard as a mean of transportation: it won't leave you stranded, but you won't go too far.
Around all that we have a testimonial "year when things went hot", whick equals the "pause" in lack of value. We have the underlying temperature trend of +0.12 to +0.14°C per decade, which doesn't seem to be changing much until the middle of this century, and we have more spread that ever between the models that make IPCC projections. The more complex the model, the less warming it is forecasting in the mid term. That's why we don't see much of it lately. I mean, Earth system models are telling truths that propaganda and hype won't like to hear. And we need propaganda and hype to do their job to have the problem taken care of. It's pretty much like a 29 yo needed to be convinced to fund his pension plan: it has to be almost compulsory 'cause, if isn't, the youngster will find himself in misery and despair in the future, because old-age comes, whatever he thinks now. AGW works the same way. People is doing too little and some hype is needed (Macdoc goes too far frequently), but the fact is that humans set the destination through our polluting ways, while it's the system called Earth the one that decides the speed we'll arrive there. And the system isn't in a rush as the political needs in the subject may demand.
I prefer to convince the 29 y.o. guy that he'll eventually grow older and not telling him how he is dying a little every second right now just because he has this puerile fantasy of he not needing to save now because he will be able to save when he reaches 50.
