For the common period this graph and that published in the IPCC TAR4 are similar. The main difference is that the line representing the simulations has less variation than in the IPCC graph, surprising as we use fewer models and fewer simulations. In particular the drops in temperature following volcanoes are less accentuated than in the IPCC graph. It is known that some models give more weight to volcanic aerosols than others and it may be that the models we used does not include them.
Figure 2 shows the same observed temperature but with the simulation of all 7 models. Where data were available for several simulation with a single model they were averaged for this graph. As can be seen the observed values generally fall within the range of modelled values. The most marked departure is in the 1940s, when observed temperatures are higher than any modelled values. By contrast the low temperature at the start of the 20th century is generally overestimated by the models.
This is seen more clearly in Figure 3, which shows the decadal change in simulated (average of all models) and observed temperature. This graph shows that the models in general performed well from the mid-1970s to the end of the century, when they were simulating the increase in temperatures due to CO2, but less well at other times. In particular:
• The observed natural rate of increase from 1910 to 1940 averaged 0.151 C/decade but the rate simulated by the models was 0.037 C/decade
• The two periods of natural cooling, at the start and middle of the 20th century, were not represented in the simulated temperatures. A similar observation may be true in relation to the start of the 21st century but at present it is too early to say.





