{"id":6056,"date":"2011-01-21T09:57:28","date_gmt":"2011-01-21T14:57:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=6056"},"modified":"2025-01-24T17:44:54","modified_gmt":"2025-01-24T22:44:54","slug":"2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2011\/01\/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons\/","title":{"rendered":"2010 updates to model-data comparisons"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As we did roughly a year ago<\/a> (and as we will probably do every year around this time), we can add another data point to a set of reasonably standard model-data comparisons that have proven interesting over the years.
\n<\/p>\n

First, here is the update of the graph showing the annual mean anomalies from the IPCC AR4 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT3v, NCDC and GISTEMP products (it really doesn’t matter which). Everything has been baselined to 1980-1999 (as in the 2007 IPCC report) and the envelope in grey encloses 95% of the model runs. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The El Ni\u00f1o event that started off 2010 definitely gave last year a boost, despite the emerging La Ni\u00f1a towards the end of the year. An almost-record summer melt in the Arctic was also important (and probably key in explaining the difference between GISTEMP and the others). Checking up on our predictions from last year, we forecast that 2010 would be warmer than 2009 (because of the ENSO phase last January). Consistent with that, I predict that 2011 will not be quite as warm as 2010, but it will still rank easily amongst the top ten warmest years of the historical record.<\/p>\n

The comments on last year’s post<\/a> (and responses) are worth reading before commenting on this post, and there are a number of points that shouldn’t need to be repeated again:<\/p>\n