Why would you "lower the projections to be more in line with the entire body of evidence so far"?
Here's global temperature vs. projections:
Looks like it's pretty much spot-on to me.
If I were using similar "projections" on the expected range of a plane I was getting on, to ensure it would make it safely across an ocean corridor, I'd say the "projection" is quite adequate, and I'd trust that plane to be properly fueled and designed for that range.
How about Sea Level Rise?
This graph only goes to 2010, but you can see the "projections window" on it:
And, updated data show that trend has continued, and is running at the very upper-edge of "projections":
Just look at the trend since 2010 - it's either the same, or trending higher.
If this were an estimate of "how much fuel I need to safely cross the ocean", and I found out my plane was landing "on fumes" each time (using the "upper end"of what I loaded it with), I'd sure as hell either want it loaded with more for future flights, or I'd want a different plane design with a longer range.
If anything, we probably need to adjust projections UPWARD on this estimate. Bad for FL and NC, though.
Also, note that SLR estimates over the entire century show a gradual ACCELERATION over time.
It ain't slowin' down, it's speeding up. That's like your plane somehow needing MORE fuel today to make the ocean crossing than it needed 50 years ago (same plane, same fuel, only maybe the passengers are fatter Americans carrying more shit with them).
How about Arctic sea ice levels (annual minimum)?
Here was the observation vs. 2012-era projections:
Notice that observations were FAR below the projections? That was your plane running out of fuel while trying to cross the ocean.
Updated data:
2012 was anomalous, and it bounced back somewhat, but not by much, and we're STILL running UNDER the REVISED PROJECTIONS.
That means your plane is STILL "running out of fuel" based on the "fuel needed" estimates.
So, explain to us: WHICH "projections" should we be "ignoring", or "lowering/downgrading" ?
The ones that are
lining up well with observations (temperatures)? Or the ones where
observations are showing projections VASTLY underestimate the changes?
Be specific.