We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Well there's a surprise, climate sceptics have been saying exactly that for a very long time. Be sure that the usual suspects, like the Guardian, BBC, NYT and WaPo will just ignore this!! It will boil the JPP Climate Circle Jerker's piss and that is all for the best as well!!


This is bound to infuriate some who maintain that there is no evidence that the slowdown in surface temperatures ever existed – an increasingly difficult stance to justify.

The study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of scientists led by Richard Millar of the University of Oxford. It has recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above temperatures seen in the late 19th century. It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable, but the new study would appear to give us much more time to act if we want to stay below it.

It says that the world has warmed more slowly than has been forecast by computer models, and that the IPCC had overstated the impact of emissions. One of the authors, Professor Michael Grubb of University College London, admitted past predictions were wrong, and that he had changed his mind about the timescales involved in man-made climate change.

Some have responded to this paper by saying that the computer models were developed a decade or so ago and that they are bound to be looking a little inaccurate a decade later. So much is obvious. But it is far cry from the message by some strident climate scientists who maintain that the models accurately portray the real world — even when the evidence has been strong and growing that they do not. To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that ‘the science’ is definitely not settled.

While one group of scientists argue that we have more time, another think we have not.

Weather Not Climate

The news release just issued by the Met Office; “A Pacific flip triggers the end of the recent slowdown,” is one of the most misleading releases I have ever read. It is curiously timed as much of the data for 2017 is obviously not in yet. Mind you, the Met Office has a habit of jumping the gun on temperature data — almost every year — with varying degrees of accuracy, and a habit to predict warmer temperatures than observed.

It says that a new analysis of 15-year running means of global surface temperature reveals that the slowdown in global warming seen between 1999 – 2014 is over thanks to three years of record temperatures. The end of this period was marked by globally high temperatures induced by an intense El Nino.

Must we say once again that using such a strong El Nino – a weather event – to calculate long-term climate trends is comparing apples and oranges? The HadCRUT4 global surface temperature database is flat between 2002 and 2014, a trend bound to be increased by the presence of high temperatures due to weather at the end of the database.

The Met Office has also offered yet another explanation for the slowdown. It is, it claims, due to temperature cycles in the Pacific which went into a cold phase in the 1990s and is now starting a warm phase. Professor Adam Scaife, the head of monthly to decadal prediction at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: “The end of the recent slowdown in global warming is due to a flip in Pacific sea-surface temperatures. This was due to a change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which entered its positive phase, warming the tropics, the west coast of North America and the globe overall.”

However, what the Met Office fails to mention is that we may also be facing a shift in Atlantic temperatures to a cool phase, the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 1995, after a relatively quiet period in the Atlantic, the AMO flipped to the warm phase. In in a few years we are likely to see it flip back to its cool phase again, with its concomitant effect on global temperatures.

Nobody has any real idea what global surface temperatures will do in the near future. There are strong indications that the globe has been cooling. It could be that declining temperatures will revert to what they were before the 2015/16 El Nino event, bringing with it the return of the slowdown.

In short, assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed. Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far too simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.
Click to expand...


http://mailchi.mp/thegwpf.org/we-were-wrong-climate-scientists-concede-170317?e=f4e33fdd1e
 
Last edited:
Well why not ? Phil Jones and Michael Mann already admitted it. The jig has been up for some time apart from a few lefties stuck in 1997. And manbearpig OwlGore who is still trying to make a buck selling his snake oil carbon credits.
 
Celticguy said:
Well why not ? Phil Jones and Michael Mann already admitted it. The jig has been up for some time apart from a few lefties stuck in 1997. And manbearpig OwlGore who is still trying to make a buck selling his snake oil carbon credits.
Click to expand...

You can't scare the bejasus out of people unless you paint an apocalyptic scenario. But the jig is up, even the brain-dead are starting to see they've been duped.
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
You can't scare the bejasus out of people unless you paint an apocalyptic scenario. But the jig is up, even the brain-dead are starting to see they've been duped.
Click to expand...

Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
Thanks...for ....nothing
 
Corazón said:
You can't scare the bejasus out of people unless you paint an apocalyptic scenario. But the jig is up, even the brain-dead are starting to see they've been duped.
Click to expand...
They are still way down on the waiting list for their Tesla and can't get off the list and save face.
 
Rune said:
Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
Thanks...for ....nothing
Click to expand...
Oh man you really do go out of your way to look foolish!! So are you calling Oxford University and University College of London obscure? Oh and by the way the paper was published in Nature, is that an obscure publication as well?
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Oh man you really do go out of your way to look foolish!! So are you calling Oxford University and University College of London obscure!! Oh and by the way the paper was published in Nature, is that an obscure publication as well?
Click to expand...

Some people are stuck in 1997.
 
Rune said:
Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
Thanks...for ....nothing
Click to expand...
Correct, it's just one article out of many. For a hypothesis to become a theory experimental results must be predictable and repeatable.
The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Click to expand...
AGW is a nice hypothesis but the predictions are far too inconsistent for it to be a theory at this point in time. Maybe someday but if anything the modelling is so consistently wrong it almost makes it necessary for the the hypothesis of AGW to be altered.
There's no doubt that with limited variables increased CO2 causes and increase in temperature. Problem is there's so many variables in the ecosystem it's almost impossible to predict the negative feedbacks involved.
It's also proven that increasing temperature causes an increase in CO2.
So there's still the unresolved question of what came first the chicken or the egg?
Then you've got Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW. That's not even a hypothesis but speculation based on an unproven hypothesis.
Then we have Apocolyptic Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW. That's not even speculation, that's Algorian nonsense.
 
aloysious said:
Correct, it's just one article out of many. For a hypothesis to become a theory experimental results must be predictable and repeatable.
AGW is a nice hypothesis but the predictions are far too inconsistent for it to be a theory at this point in time. Maybe someday but if anything the modelling is so consistently wrong it almost makes it necessary for the the hypothesis of AGW to be altered.
There's no doubt that with limited variables increased CO2 causes and increase in temperature. Problem is there's so many variables in the ecosystem it's almost impossible to predict the negative feedbacks involved.
It's also proven that increasing temperature causes an increase in CO2.
So there's still the unresolved question of what came first the chicken or the egg?
Then you've got Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW. That's not even a hypothesis but speculation based on an unproven hypothesis.
Then we have Apocolyptic Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW. That's not even speculation, that's Algorian nonsense.
Click to expand...
The true believers will cling on to their beliefs no matter what, it transcends logic and reason.
 
Corazón said:
The true believers will cling on to their beliefs no matter what, it transcends logic and reason.
Click to expand...

It defies logic reason and science.
But since they ignored the lack of science in 1997 and saw a picture of a polar bear on an ice flow they are forever doomed to this foolishness.
 
Corazón said:
Well there's a surprise, climate sceptics have been saying exactly that for a very long time. Be sure that the usual suspects, like the Guardian, BBC, NYT and WaPo will just ignore this!! It will boil the JPP Climate Circle Jerker's piss and that is all for the best as well!!




http://mailchi.mp/thegwpf.org/we-were-wrong-climate-scientists-concede-170317?e=f4e33fdd1e
Click to expand...

That post is a bunch of technical babble that says nothing
 
TheDonald said:
That post is a bunch of technical babble that says nothing
Click to expand...
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: "When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017*


To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that ‘the science’ is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed.

Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.

David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
 
Corazón said:
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: "When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017*


To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that ‘the science’ is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed.

Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.

David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
Click to expand...
Again it says nothing. I will explain. There is no computer model that can predict warming or cooling of the Earth because the ultimate factors that cause this are just not all known. The fact that the models are wrong actually confirms this. Global warming due to pollution is a wishlist of certain humans, it has no basis in fact.
 
Rune said:
Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
Thanks...for ....nothing
Click to expand...

These are the guys who did the carbon budget for the IPCC. It's for real, man. Sorry. It means that when we were saying the climate models overstated warming, we were right. And it's by a lot. They calculated based on two things. 1)The natural carbon sinks are greater than modeled due to the increased uptake of co2 by plants. As the concentration increases plants are able to get more co2 and they are then able to use water more efficiently as well which increases their growth. Historically plants respond to increased concentration by evolving to reduce stomatal density. Science!
2)The climate models forecast too much warming and they finally had to admit it and recalculate. Science!

This is the first walkback and long overdue. Hopefully the stranglehold over this subject will loosen, but you guys are religious about your beliefs. You even doubt your truth bringers when they have bad news. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top