The Flaws in the IPCC Assessment Report 5

The IPCC issued AR5 in 2013. The experiments and conclusions are flawed because the modelling ignored rapid, less than a few years, changes which axiomatically exclude all the eight continental scale aerosol plumes described on this website which can vary significantly inter-annually. Hence whatever the CMIP5 models modeled it was not the actual climate. It also appears that the base year for projecting emissions into the future was 2005 and since the South East Asian aerosol Plume (SEAP) was at a very low level in 2005 and at a huge level in 2006 CMIP5, the modelling carried out for AR5, would not have included a year equivalent to 2006 in the forward modelling. This is shown in the two NASA images below:

NASA Terra AOD October 2005 (Low) 2006 (extremely high)

One paper by Lamarque used to establish the aerosol emission levels for CMIP5 states:

“While interannual changes may be important for the detailed analysis of past “rapid” (i.e. less than a few years) pollution changes, we decided that decadal data are overall better suited to fulfill the needs of AR5 for the following reasons: (1) annual data sets exist only for a limited set of species (Smith et al., 2004) or only for the recent past – for example RETRO, available for the 1960–2000 period
(Schultz et al., 2007, 2008) and REAS, which covers the 1980–2003 (Ohara et al.,2007; Smith et al.,2004) and (2) future emissions generated by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are usually available with time steps on the order of 10 years.” {Lamarque et al, Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2010, DOI 10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010}.

Hence the experiments carried out for AR5 focused on long term climate change and ignored short term variations occurring over only a few years.

Since it is easy to show that the South East Asian aerosol Plume (SEAP) causes ENSO events, the greatest inter-annual perturbation of the global climate  as well as drought in south eastern Australia any analysis which ignores this plume renders the analysis at least questionable and at worst rubbish.