[Last updated: 21st February 2018]
This page is an ongoing effort to compare observations of global temperature with CMIP5 simulations assessed by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. The first two figures below are updated versions of Figure 11.25a,b from IPCC AR5 which were originally produced in mid-2013.
The first panel shows the raw ‘spaghetti’ projections, with different observational datasets in black and the different emission scenarios (RCPs) shown in colours. The simulation data uses spatially complete coverage of surface air temperature.
The second panel shows the AR5 assessment for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period. The HadCRUT4.6 observations are shown in black with their 5-95% uncertainty. Several other observational datasets are shown in blue. The light grey shading shows the CMIP5 5-95% range for historical (pre-2005) & all future forcing pathways (RCPs, post-2005); the grey lines show the min-max range. The dark grey shading shows the projections using a 2006-2012 reference period. The red hatching shows the IPCC AR5 indicative likely (>66%) range for the 2016-2035 period.
The observations for 2016-7 fall near, or just above, the top of the ‘likely’ range depending on the dataset. 2016 was warmed slightly by the El Nino event in the Pacific. The years 2015-2017 were all more than 1°C above a 1850-1900 (pseudo-pre-industrial) baseline.
One interesting question to consider is: given post-2012 temperature data and scientific studies which have appeared after AR5, would the overall assessment (black bar & red hatching) be changed? In AR5 the assessment was that temperatures would be 0.3-0.7K above 1986-2005 for the 2016-2035 period average (as shown by the black bar). My personal view is that the upper limit would remain the same, but there would be an argument for raising the lower boundary to 0.4K, mainly because of improved understanding of the effect of missing temperature data in the rapidly-warming Arctic.
There are several possible explanations for why the earlier observations are at the lower end of the CMIP5 range. First, there is internal climate variability, which can cause temperatures to temporarily rise faster or slower than expected. Second, the radiative forcings used after 2005 are from the RCPs, rather than as observed. Given that there have been some small volcanic eruptions and a dip in solar activity, this has likely caused some of the apparent discrepancy. Third, the real world may have a climate sensitivity towards the lower end of the CMIP5 range. Next, the exact position of the observations within the CMIP5 range depends slightly on the reference period chosen. Lastly, this is not an apples-with-apples comparison because it is comparing air temperatures everywhere (simulations) with blended and sparse observations of air temperature and sea temperatures. A combination of some of these factors is likely responsible.
In addition, the figure below updates Fig. 1.4 from IPCC AR5, which compares projections from previous IPCC Assessment Reports with subsequent observations. The HadCRUT4.4 observations from 2013-2015 are added as black squares. Note that previous reports made differing assumptions about future emissions. This figure has not yet been updated to include 2016-7 temperature data.
21st February 2018: Entire page updated for 2017 global temperatures.
23rd January 2017: Entire page updated for 2016 global temperatures.
22nd February 2016: Update to Fig. 1.4 from IPCC AR5 added.
26th January 2016: Entire page updated for 2015 global temperatures.
2nd September 2015: Updated figure to use HadCRUT4.4 up to July 2015 and added link to Cowtan et al. (2015).
5th June 2015: Updated using data from HadCRUT4.3 up to April 2015, and the new NOAA dataset.
2nd February 2015: Cowtan & Way 2014 data added.
26th January 2015: Entire page updated for 2014 temperatures.
27th January 2014: Page created.