The AR4
spaghetti graph shows the average of runs within a model for 21 models (A1B) and observations fall outside the range shown in Figure 10.5 A1B, giving a much different impression than that of the re-stated Figure 1.4.
Figure:
Spaghetti graph showing top - absolute contribution to MBH98 reconstruction (1400 - 1980 for AD1400 step proxies) by the following groups: Asian tree rings; Australia tree rings; European ice core; Bristlecones (and Gaspé); Greenland ice core; non-bristlecone North American tree rings; South American ice core; South American tree rings.
It's therefore evident that they had, at one time, plotted the Science 1999
spaghetti graph showing data before 1550, but elected to delete the pre-1550 data as well as the post-1960 data.
It is not errors that
those spaghetti graphs show, but the stability of the solutions.
The same should be true for climate change we should evaluate the changes in temperature (not anomalies) over time at the same stations and present the data as
a spaghetti graph showing any differing trends and not assume that regional or climates in gridded areas are the same — which they are not as is obvious from the climate zones that exist or microclimates due to changes in precipitation, land use etc..
Not exact matches
A leaflet I picked up at a renewable energy exhibition in France
showed it large as life — without any other member of the
spaghetti graph.
As you observe, there is a
spaghetti graph in AR4, the range of which (AR4 Figure 10.5) is wider than the projections
shown in AR4 FIgure 10.26.
If IPCC intended this range of projections to represent their uncertainty range, then that is what they should have
shown in AR4 Figure 10.26 (which is more consistent with the Technical Summary than the range in the
spaghetti graph.)
I've gone through a laborious process to calculate what the untruncated IPCC
spaghetti graph would look like and
show the calculations here.
I notice the complete failure of the NIPCC report to
show any global or hemispheric temperature reconstructions apart from the «
spaghetti graph» ones which
show temperatures currently are more likely warmer the MWP.
(05:07:34) Sorry, Joel, I've seen the
spaghetti graphs and something like two of the twenty
graphs show a short cooling trend possible.
Sorry, Joel, I've seen the
spaghetti graphs and something like two of the twenty
graphs show a short cooling trend possible.
Studies have
shown that prolonged gazing at a
spaghetti graph of climate model ensembles reduces visual acuity by 38 % and lowers the I.Q. by 42 full points.