Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Link to original story:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
“At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again.”
Not a biggish one until 2016-7 at the earliest.
“Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend”
Should this sentence read “…said the lack of warming would have to endure…”
This has not been a good decade for the chicken little alarmists out there. ;-))
Absolutely, spot-on: the CAGW is rooted in a large, amplified warming from CO2 that is distinguishable from “natural” warming factors by its extreme effects, and of concern because of those exteme effects. There is no CO2-distinguished effect without the extreme temperature rise, and no looming catastrophe without the same rise.
If IPCC theory is shown to lead to the “C” Scenario, CO2-theory = Nature theory, reasonable CO2-mitigation has no discernible effect (other than CO2 atmospheric SUPPRESSION practices), and a 3C rise in 300 years is uneventful because of accommodation work and probably wouldn’t happen due to enhanced natural CO2 sequestration by plant life.
We have to keep our eyes on the thimble hiding the pea.
My interpretation of these events is a little different from that of Lord Monckton. The IPCC et al are not completely stupid and they’re going to let go of the “CO2 causes catastrophic warming” scare. They realize they’re losing that game and so they will change the rules. They’ve been sowing the seeds for a while — as “global warming” morphed into “climate change”. Extreme weather is playing very well for them at present despite the fact the whole damn story is completely sans data.
Do not think for one second that Pachauri is softening his resolve to pursue the same old path.
WE keep saying this nightmare will end soon, or words to that effect. But it doesn’t. Let us be honest aout this. Despite having nasty little things like REAL DATA set them back, the governments of the world want, need, LOVE, CAGW because they can raise money without taxing individuals. Let’s face it – that is what this entire debacle is all about. Your governments don’t care the least about saving the planet, or being green, or climate this that and the other. They care about raising government revenues – they care about — wll, Mel Brookes said it best in 1973: “Gentlemen, we’ve got to prtect our phoney-balony jobs!”
Governments repond to lobbying pressure – especially lobbies which promise big fat tax rewards which do NOT include individual (voter) tax increases. This entire fg*#@ur momisugly#&! is about nothing more than that. The greenie groups BELIEVE in the fairy story. Thepoliticians don’t even want to know the details and they especially don’t want to know about ANY details which will endanger their efforts to raise money for even more government programs.
We are not making headway because things have not gotten colder. They have remained constant. Until it gets colder, we are in for an uphill battle. As Pogo said, “From here on down it’s uphill all the way.” Steady temperature obviously gets us no-where, so we are flogging an almost dead horse. But it is what we have until things cool off. We must all recognize this truth. We have forced them to recognize that the Earth is not getting hotter, so they focus on so-called super-storms. The endless spiral of cat and mouse will continue unless the Earth cools off.
This is not doom and gloom surrender. Let’s keep plugging away because we are at least keeping the hell hounds at bay. Without our efforts, big and small, our governemtns would already have us bent over and hugging our own knees. But I think we need to recognize that this entire mess is no no way about climate – it’s about big government and $$$$$$$$$
Tom
Makes ZERO difference what this lying Pachauri SOB says; the AGW thesis is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT as is communism, socialism, etc.
We can experience over the next 10 years “average global temperatures” (this assumes an average global temperature has any significance whatsoever) well below normal and the AGW “scientists” will STILL claim it is due to human activity.
70 years of communist rule in Russia resulted in mass impoverishment of their citizenry and mass exterminations of about 20 to 50 million people (vs. Hitler’s murder of 10 million). Yet today, there are many folks here in the USA and W.Europe (e.g., OWS) that believe communism is the way to go.
My point is that facts, data, evidence, mean absolutely nothing to the leftist radical. Their belief system is religious in every sense of the word; and so it is with the AGW radicals.
The AGW thesis will never, ever go away even if much of the N. Hemisphere once again gets buried under 10,000 feet of ice.
“Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
Typo?
For the past 18 years CET shows 1.7 C / century decline
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
Global warming is over, future is ‘cool’
The reason for waiting 30-40years is simple enough…..people like Pachauri will be well into their retirement or passed on by then. And we will have paid for it….in more ways than one.
Aussies are really great people. Don’t judge them by the thin layer of scum that has risen to the top of the media and climate science ponds. Fortunately the internet is where most people get their news these days and the truth must prevail.
The time span for data to be reach scientific valid is related to the degree to which it supports the cause , therefore data such has this will be valid one day after hell freezes over.
M’lord, I’m having a hard time accepting that an El Niño event is a global warming event. It is simply the release of energy already here from one place to another and actually allows energy in the oceans to return to the universe. Once heat has reached the atmosphere it doesn’t linger long in the Earth system.
However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
None of the models I have looked at (granted superficially) does properly evaluate natural variability, the apparent lack of sufficient change in the TSI is continuously and falsely presented as ‘the sun has nothing to do with it’.
As the solar activity winds-down global temperature will respond, since there is strong evidence of a variable solar input beyond and above the TSI, as demonstrated here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Is Pachauri now trying to steal Moncktons thunder, starting by outdoing him with’17 years’ ?
No matter how good your theory is, no matter how elequent your hypothesis, if it doesn’t match experimental results, it’s wrong.
Given the time scales involved, when is the CAGW or even global warming going to be falsified as a theory ?
Can’t someone email Pachauri’s press releases to the Obama admin, congress and senate? Along with it should go the “no more snow” in the NH and no more rain in Australia. A very tiny bit of logic reveals that if, with their models they have got the last 17 years wrong, it means that they didn’t know what they were talking about in the 1990s, so how can they be allowed to jigger things around to say now that they expected things to freeze up. We need a new book with the contradicting science from individuals in juxtaposition. I can’t believe the papers, TV, Hollywood, all the universities, all the government and quasi gov research agencies can get away with this gross about turn. I’m pleased to see Pachauri, Hadley Centre, some of the hockey team emeriti, the NYT, some of NOAA and even the BBC are beginning their revision and bet hedging. But why hasn’t it collapsed entirely? Oh I don’t expect the A list of the consensus to let go – ever, but what about at least one university, or journal, or agency.
The “fundamental and enduring discrepancy” on which to fix one’s eyes is that climate models can not and do not predict climate. As soon as one takes your tack, CMoB, of announcing a discrepancy between models and observations, one has yielded the argument into the AGW arena where model projections are holy referential writ.
They are no such thing.
Climate models are tuned to 20th century observables. They are adjusted so that their large errors are anti-correlated and off-setting. Their error is disappeared. They don’t predict a bloody thing. There can be no discrepancy.
The entire AGW conversation battens on the fact that the climate has warmed by quasi-oscillatory happenstance. Climate models are made to make happenstance look like CO2-driven causality.
This is what should be kept fundamentally and enduringly in view. This is the ground that should not be yielded. Climate models are a tendentious construction. They are a predictive crock.
“What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.”
Christopher, you underestimate your own abilities; I am sure they will find other events to ban you from!
Concur. There just isn’t a lot of warm water in the Western Pacific Warm pool. The trades have been around “nominal”, neither very strong or weak. As a result we are not seeing a massive charging of that warm pool. It is the relaxation of the trade winds that allows that charged pool of warm water to rebound back eastward along the equator and create El Nino conditions. That pool isn’t particularly “charged” at the moment. If we were to see an El Nino condition, it would be a rather weak one.
JA says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:28 am
“Makes ZERO difference what this lying Pachauri SOB says; the AGW thesis is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT as is communism, socialism, etc.”
It is said if you scratch a greenie you will always uncover red.
A sister issue is “where do the lukewarmers now stand in the face of this embarrassing development? If you were lukewarm 20 years ago, you were essentially considered on the sceptical side of the arguments. You were holding back from jumping into the cauldron holus bolus, thereby harming your chances at funding. You must have had a reason for this. If the foamin-at-the mouth warmers have been trimming their expectations back – even Hansen is saying, gee we included a lower sensitivity in our thinking. You guys in the middle are, perforce, becoming more wrong than the gradual revisionists who are crowding into your territory. You have provided a soft landing spot. I admire rgbatduke’s position – he doesn’t know – maybe it will finally warm up or maybe it will get colder. I say you don;t know either. What do you say.
The first paragraph in the quotation from the Australian was left out of the blockquote.
“Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
Why that number, exactly? Is there some theory that I don’t know about, or is he just making up numbers after the fact?