The Mail on Sunday takes on the CCC

David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is having a go at the Committee on Climate Change for their denial of the points raised in his article last week and this graph, which was sourced from NCAR and used in the Economist article noted on WUWT.

Rather stubborn, these blokes.

Excerpt:

The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.

We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.

Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.

Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised .  .  . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’

He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.

Our graph earlier this month was reproduced from a version first drawn by Dr Ed Hawkins, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Last week it was reprinted as part of a four-page report in The Economist.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, media and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to The Mail on Sunday takes on the CCC

  1. Frederick Whatley says:

    How silly of the Mail. The Emperor’s new clothes are quite splendid – you just have to squint a bit.

  2. Jarrett Jones says:

    Unlike temperature the response of climate activists is perfectly predictable.

  3. MrV says:

    @JJ Awesome quote.

  4. Pingo says:

    I will go out forthwith and waste no time in buying a copy.

  5. Hasn’t anyone been paying attention? When the data disagrees with the theory, it is the data which is wrong.

  6. Pete says:

    The Flat Earth Society is officially rejuvenated … just ask them.

  7. John G. says:

    Leo Tolstoi: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

  8. John Q. Public says:

    Ignore that man behind the curtain!

  9. G. Karst says:

    With the record cold currently experienced by the British, I would be thinking that such defrocking of climate alarmists, may lead to a shortage of tar, feathers, and rails in Britain. At least in the Britain of old. GK

  10. vukcevic says:

    Solar activity and the North Atlantic tectonics suggests that the North Hemisphere is heading for colder climate in the approaching decades

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm

  11. James Griffin says:

    It is now the start of a fight back to realism that they cannot face up to…..the Mail have bowled the first ball and in due course all other media outlets will realise the futility of the AGW cause.

  12. DirkH says:

    Obviously we are now living in a world that has only a 5% chance of existing.

  13. Walter Royal says:

    I just posted the following in the comments at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/a-real-man-made-climate-crisis/

    I realized, after I posted it, I should have asked folks here for input on this as this is where I have learned more about climate than anywhere else. I realize there are many more inputs into the equation but I was trying to keep it simple so I wouldn’t lose the people who I was trying to educate. Keeping that in mind I would appreciate some of your thoughts on this.

    “There have been several times in recorded history when the temperature has been above what it is now. The Minoan Warm period, the Roman Warm period, and the Medieval Warm period to name 3 of the most recent. During each of these times mankind has flourished. Food production increased significantly and civilization expanded. No one drowned from rising seas and civilization did not come to a horrific end. All of this is natural and is how it has worked for millions of years. The mechanism that drives this process is the sun. When plant life is reduced water vapor is reduced which allows the sun to heat the earth which releases CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 increase makes plants grow faster which uses the CO2 up faster and adds moisture back to the atmosphere which lowers CO2 levels causing plant growth to slow as the balance is restored. Simple and effective climate control courtesy of Mother Nature. The point is that CO2 is not the problem, it is part of the natural climate system of Earth.”

  14. markx says:

    Jarrett Jones says: March 31, 2013 at 7:40 am

    Unlike temperature the response of climate activists is perfectly predictable.

    Well said! And too true.

    Once they would reply with a bit of science and some confident statements on the skill of their models, but that soon ran out… now it is instantaneous straight up name-calling and accusations of lying, deceit and ‘not understanding ‘.

  15. AGW_Skeptic says:

    Can this graph be updated to remove the shaded red bands to the left of the blue line? Since they were hindcast, they really shouldn’t be there in the first place.

    Anyone have software to do this?

  16. RockyRoad says:

    The Committee on Climate Change doesn’t realize that computers spit back exactly what they’re taught to spit. An introspective analysis of their cult demonstrates obvious bias and false assumptions. Time for a sea change.

  17. Kitefreak says:

    OK, the Daily Mail is full of celebtrity b*llocks etc., but, look, the MSM play a game with your heads. Forget about the form, concentrate on the the content. I don’t know who owns the Daily Mail, but I assume it is ultimately some behemoth corporation, which will no doubt have links to the rest of the MSM heads and thus share their agenda (control of the masses – see Bernase) and are willing to play their part – ‘the rebellious one’ – to make it look like we have a fair and balanced and ‘free’ press. Who knows?

    Anyway, the government ‘committees’ will keep flippin’ lying and lying and lying, because they can do so and get away with it. It’s gone way, way beyond the point they’re going to listen to rational arguments or even pretend that the people have any say anymore (see Cypriot banking crisis). As my dear late mother once said: “… would argue black is white”.

    Don’t expect any change in the official line anytime soon, is my view.

  18. richard verney says:

    If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width. Expect to see more articles of this nature being published in MSM. All of this is making the task of preparing the next IPCC report more difficult.

    Now what the Mail ought to do next is to put things into perspective and to look at CET temperatures and show how these have declined this century. The average CET anomaly has declined by 0.6degC which means that it has given back just over half of the ‘unprecedented’ warming seen in the late 1970s/late 1990s period. It wis quite conceivable that within the next 2 or 3 years, the CET temperature anomaly will be no more than it was in 1980. That is a bit of a thought, isn’t it?

    More significantly, already this century, the winter CET temperatures have declined by a staggering 1.5degC!

    Global temperatures may have stalled, but as far as the UK is concerned, temperatures are falling and falling fast. No wonder the winter mortality figures are so bad, with there having been approximately 250,000 more premature deaths this century. Grim reading indeed. When one compares steps taken to reduce road casualties, it is difficult to understand why politicians seem to disregard the needless and preventable early deaths caused by the cold and expensive energy.

    If only there was the political will, rather than seeing increased energy bills, energy bills could probably be halved. That would be a popular step for politicians to take.

  19. Chris Edwards says:

    It looks like the Mail wants to survive the backlash!!

  20. Kaboom says:

    How dare the Mail on Sunday rock the trough from which the profiteers feed!

  21. Gary Pearse says:

    The null hypothesis (1 – p1) is built into this graphic in dark orange. However, even 100%-75% is clearly a way too high a percent probability. Removing the redundant top half of the light orange band and going with (1 – p2) for the bottom half could also prove to have been too high going forward. Reversing the (1 – p)s is perhaps closer to the null hypothesis, i.e 5% for the bottom half of the dark orange and 25% for the bottom half of the light orange is clearly closer to where we should be. Assuming (possibly incorrectly) that errors were calculated legitimately from the models, what tweaking (read major re build) of the models would give these figures. For a start, we are almost certain that climate sensitivity is near 1.0 (95% probability?).

  22. BillyV says:

    1) @JJ is indeed an awsome quote.
    2) Pingo, go out and buy several papers (for us in USA) so the Mail will wonder what happened.
    3) The Emperor is gradually getting de-frocked by the media, and soon perhaps, we will be blessed that we can actually “see” his nakedness.

  23. Silver Ralph says:

    The government advisor for renewable energy, Prof David Mackay, played the same deceitful game recently. He wrote a guidance paper saying that electric vehicles were five times as efficient as fossil fuel cars. This is again a deliberate deceit, designed to con naive politicians.
    See Renewable Energy Without Hot Air:

    http://www.withouthotair.com

    Electric vehicles are only “5 x as efficient” if the electricity comes for free, which it does not, and you use an American gas-guzzler as your comparison. In reality, Western electricity (except France) is mostly fossil powered, with a considerable loss of efficiency in the generation, which makes electric vehicles quite inefficient. In fact, most modern European diesels are much more efficient than electric vehicles, and put out far less CO2. My 5-door sedan is about 40% thermic efficient (45 mpg), against most electric vehicles being only 30% efficient on current fossil-electrical supplies.

    In addition, it is not well explained that we would need to double the number of power stations, if we want to go to an all-electric surface transport system.

    Unfortunately, there are too many ‘scientific’ officials out there telling whoppers, and too many politicians without enough grey matter to know they are being conned.

    .

  24. Theo Goodwin says:

    Will those that Rose criticizes address his criticisms? No. Will they vilify Rose? Yes. Will they address the same criticisms that are based on the same graph that is found in the Economist? No. Will they vilify the Economist? Reluctantly, but yes though they most likely will use surrogates. Will Lord Deben’s conflict of interest become an issue that attracts the attention of the public? Because I am not British I can only guess. In the US, such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.

  25. Yes, by now we know; the GCMs can not emulate reality.
    But, will the alarmists leave us alone?
    No, they also can not even see reality.

  26. vukcevic says:

    AGW_Skeptic says: March 31, 2013 at 8:26 am
    Can this graph be updated to remove the shaded red bands to the left of the blue line? Since they were hindcast, they really shouldn’t be there in the first place.
    …………..
    Yes

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GR1.htm

  27. son of mulder says:

    I like this chart showing Hansen’s predictions from 1988 vs reality.

    Scenario A is what should be compared to Reality. Conclusion….the model is wrong.

    Hansen so believes in his models that

    http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/dr-james-hansen-calls-civil-disobedience-capitol-coal-plant-march-2

    says

    “Dr. James Hansen, the internationally recoginized climatologist has released a public service announcment, calling on all of us to join the Capitol Climate Action, the largest civil disobedience against global warming in U.S. history. “

  28. Theo Goodwin says:

    richard verney says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:05 am
    “If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width. Expect to see more articles of this nature being published in MSM. All of this is making the task of preparing the next IPCC report more difficult.”

    No doubt the IPCC and associated elites regret the day that they wrapped themselves in the flag of science. Watch for them to shift all their efforts to the policy front. It seems that Mann has done this. Gore’s game is all that remains to them.

  29. Amlyn says:

    Have the seen the article “The Joy of Global Warming” by Bjorn Lomborg in The Sunday Times? It’s on the front page of the New Review section!

  30. Vince Causey says:

    richard verney says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

    “If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width.”

    Yes, but then there is the 99% (even wider) band. And after that is the 99.9% band, and so on, each band being wider than the last. They will simply say, “Look, there’s still 0.0001% that the climate is behaving as modelled.”

    They will never cease.

  31. Jimbo says:

    I always said that it would not be too long before we knew who the real ‘deniers’ are. They are the new ‘Temperature Standstill Deniers’. Hey, I didn’t start the name calling.

  32. kim says:

    As Paul Matthews points out the bullet points are:

    1. The Hoskins quote ‘the models are lousy’.
    2. Hindcasting.
    3. Lord Deben’s astonishing corruption.
    ================

  33. Jim D says:

    HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do, so GISTEMP has shown a warming more in line with the models in the last decade. The pole is warming faster than anywhere. Also land warming as seen in BEST exceeds the model gradient here, being 0.3 C per decade since 1980, so the discrepancy is due to the non-polar oceans remaining cooler, probably as a result of a long-period circulation mode.

  34. Kon Dealer says:

    Of course Sir Brian Hoskins (Committee on climate change, Grantham Institute for Climate change, Council member for the Natural Environment Research Council that funds and supports most of the environmental research in the UK) gets not a penny for his selfless work (http://www.adbiogas.co.uk/tag/prof-sir-brian-hoskins/)

    Not at all like Tim Yeo

    http://order-order.com/2013/02/15/tim-yeos-2-5-million-conflicts-of-interest/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187948/Conservative-MP-chairs-climate-committee-earns-140k-green-energy-firms.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2529667/Tory-MP-Tim-Yeo-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-car-tax-report.html

    http://eotp.org/2012/09/19/2012-conservative-m-p-tim-yeo-conflict-of-interest/

    And so on- ad infinitum

  35. William Astley says:

    It should be noted that there are periods in the geological record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 has high and the planet was cold and periods when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm. An explanation for the multiple periods of millions of years when planetary temperature does not correlate with CO2 levels is that there a missing mechanism that is not modeled by the general circulation models that causes the CO2 warming mechanism to saturate. CO2 absorbs specific radiation bands. In the lower atmosphere there is agreement among the specialist that the CO2 warming mechanism is saturated (i.e. Increased CO2 does not result in significant warming of the lower atmosphere.) It was believed however by some of the specialist that the CO2 mechanism could heat the planet due to high altitudes were the CO2 mechanism is not be saturated.

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

    The majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has predicted to occur in tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the earth’s surface. This warming should have created a hot spot (warming region) in the tropics at 10 km. There is no observed tropical hot spot. If there was a tropical hot spot the tropics would have warmed. There is no observed 20th century warming in the tropics

    The 20th century warming that did occur is in high Northern latitudes, particularly in the Arctic and there is some warming in high Southern latitudes, however, the Antarctic has cooled slightly rather than warmed. (Interesting this specific warming pattern, warming in Arctic and slight cooling in the Antarctic and is called the ‘polar see-saw’. The polar see-saw occurs cyclically and correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.)

    The likely explanation for the saturation of the CO2 greenhouse mechanism is planetary clouds increase or decrease in the tropics to resist forcing changes which is supported by Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation using satellite data compared to changes in ocean surface temperature (the satellite data determines the frequency of the radiation in addition to the magnitude of the radiation and hence can determine where the emitted radiation is long wave ‘heat’ from the planet or short wave sunlight reflected by planetary clouds.).

    As the extreme AGW paradigm pushers have anchored the public and the science group think to the paradigm that increased CO2 caused the 20th century warming, the fact that there is no tropical troposphere hot spot and the warming that has occurred is the regions that cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism, supports the assertion that majority of the 20th century warming has not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Ironically it appears an abrupt change is occurring to the sun which will cause significant planetary cooling. As there is more evidence for cooling, I will outline the mechanisms in detail.

    Shaviv and Veizer’s paper Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate provides an outline of how the change in galactic cosmic rays (high speed protons, the misleading term ‘rays’ is used as the early researchers mistook the high speed cosmic protons with radiation) that occurs when the solar system through the plane of our galaxy as solar system rotates about the galaxy.

    As discussed in Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer’s paper Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate, there has been four ice epochs on the earth in the last 500 million years. Shaviv and Veizer analysis supports the assertion that the 50 to 70 million year ice epochs are caused by the increased galactic cosmic rays that occurs when the solar system passes through the plane of the galaxy.)

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

    Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
    We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html

    RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES —The starting point of SV03 is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 Myr based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth’s passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 Myr, the time span analysed in SV03. The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then interpreted not as a collision-related clustering in their real ages but as an indication of fluctuations in cosmic ray flux (CRF). One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages _ 130 Myr) to which more than one dating method can be applied.

  36. DocMartyn says:

    If you measure the (model-actutal) for hindcast and forecast you can perform a t-test comparing hind/fore casting. Such a t-test would tell you if they have honestly used models or if their models are actually fits.
    I did this last week and got a p of 0.003

  37. dp says:

    My my – did I just read that the Committee on Climate Change (COC) are deemed stable climate deniers? Does that make the rest of us stable climate alarmists? If so I cheerfully accept the label.

    Everyone remembers Chicken Little, the boy who cried “wolf”, and the chap with his finger in the dyke, but nobody remembers who set them right. It is the role of the MSM to keep the trend alive and so the myth of the hockey stick and the low-bred science behind it will outlive us all.

  38. Blade says:

    Jarrett Jones [March 31, 2013 at 7:40 am] says:

    Unlike temperature the response of climate activists is perfectly predictable.

    Repeated for truth!

  39. Mike Smith says:

    Jim D says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am
    HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do, so GISTEMP has shown a warming more in line with the models in the last decade.

    See Hansen’s forecast compared to GISTEMP: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf

    Not even close.

  40. A C Osborn says:

    Look out JimD is about, pushing all the warmist excuses.
    He even has the cheek to quote the totally mangled GISS temperature set, which is totally divorced from history and reality.

  41. A C Osborn says:

    Theo Goodwin says: March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am “such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.”
    Theo, I haven’t seen much of a firestorm over Mr Obama’s EPA shenanigans and GM and Green Subsidy fiascoes.

  42. ferdberple says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
    In the US, such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.
    ===========
    only if it involved sex.

  43. Calculator says:

    Maybe someone should calculate how much sun’s energy radiation changes and how much global mean temperature changes, use Kelvin, which is vital for correct answer. Okay I’ll do it. Sun heat radiation +-3 W/m2 means approx 6/1362=0,44% and the tempertaure +-0,6 K, which means 1,2K/287,5K=0,42%.
    Is this coincidence?

  44. Stephen Richards says:

    Jim D says:

    March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am

    HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do

    NO THEY DON’T !! Go read Hansen’s metadata.

  45. Phil. says:

    son of mulder says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:37 am
    I like this chart showing Hansen’s predictions from 1988 vs reality.

    Scenario A is what should be compared to Reality. Conclusion….the model is wrong.

    No, Scenario A is the path not taken as expected by Hansen, the actual emissions are close to Scenario C for all but CO2 which was close to A & B which were expected by Hansen to not differ very much by 2012. So what should be compared to reality is somewhere between C and B.

    Of course the comparison with the UAH temperature is bogus too with an arbitrary shift to match at zero in late 1987 despite the fact that A, B & C didn’t match at that point!

    So it’s clear that the author of that graph hadn’t read Hansen 88, didn’t understand what the calculations were based on, and made an arbitrary choice of temperature comparison to make the it look as bad as possible!

    Ira’s recent attempt although it contains misunderstandings, is much better than this rubbish.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/how-well-did-hansen-1988-do

  46. Jim D:

    You are clearly the person I have been seeking because at March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am you say

    HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do, so GISTEMP has shown a warming more in line with the models in the last decade.

    Obviously, you are saying you know, understand and trust GISSTEMP. So, I ask you to explain this

    Why and how does GISS repeatedly make such large alterations to global temperature determinations for decades in the past?
    Either
    (a) the adjustments are proper so GISSTEMP is ‘correct’
    or
    (b) the adjustments are unjustifiable and, therefore, GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.

    The temperature measurements were made decades ago and GISS does not have a time-machine to go back and make more of them. But the GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why? In the absence of an answer to this question it has to be assumed that GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.

    Please note that I have repeatedly asked this question (including to representatives of GISS on WUWT) with no reply. However, you have posted here to support GISSTEMP and, therefore, I assume you can answer my question.

    Thanking you in anticipation of your answer

    Richard

  47. TomRude says:

    On Yahoo, Bill MacCracken continues to spew his IPCC and models despite having proven repeatedly he has little understanding of meteorology. He now even wants more money for geoengineering! That is how out of touch with reality the director of the Climate Institue is with reality. The green mongers are getting desperate to sell their scam in the Guardian and elsewhere. Wintry conditions that were explained through warm air displacing cold air (Overland, Wang, Pethoukov) is now supposed to relate to “global warming slowing down the polar vortex letting cold air “escape” more freely”… Dr. Coumou from Postdam claimed recently. Next, we’ll learn that glaciations were in fact a huge influx of global warming letting escape tons of polar air southward… LOL
    30 years ago, had a student come up with such BS, he would have been laughed at. Not today. Why? Because the MacCracken types are running departments and have no clue about reality.

  48. NZ Willy says:

    It’s amusing to see how those 75% & 95% confidence levels were “calculated” on that chart — in the hindcast portion (ie, 90% of the chart), they were placed such that the instrumental record is within the 75% zone 75% of the time, and ditto for the 95% zone. Isn’t hindsight wonderful! Damn those forward-going temperatures! The needed solution is tweakable *current* temperatures — will the IPCC address this urgent need?

  49. Cherry Pick says:

    You should not forget that you have have to get the CO2 level OK at the same time. Good models replicate reality in all of its aspects at the same time. So, lets compare the predictions of temperature simultaneously. It looks worse, because mankind did not follow the add no new CO2 scenario.

  50. vukcevic says:

    It is reassuring to know that someone ( most likely office cleaner, or a climate change weekend dissident) from the University Park, the Pennsylvania State University (IP Address:128.118……..), with high quality monitor (Resolution: 1920×1200, Win7) is reading this website; not that I would expect Dr. Mann to be in the office today, but if however unlikely, then he might be interested in this .

  51. elmer says:

    I hate to be a party pooper, but the average temperature (black line) is still in the 95% pink model’s margin of error. It looks like it will be out soon but they technically aren’t wrong yet. Just sayin’.

  52. herkimer says:

    Sir Brian Hoskins insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised .’
    I agree that the scientific basis for significant long term climate risks remains robust not becasue of potential unprecedented global warming as he implies but because of the upcoming 30 years of colder weather like UK is now having .He is doing exacltly the opposite to help the people by advising the taking of valuable funding which is urgently needed[ even today] for fuel and energy and spending it on subsidies which will do little to change the climate . There is a potential that if the next cold spell is as bad as the most recent past one between 1962-1987, 3 out of every 4 winters could be colder than normal. This is exactly what has already been happening since after 2007 where 4 of the last 5 winters have been below average and some at record lows or record cold months. UK Winter temperatures have been dropping for 6 years now after 2007. Unless another sun appears on the UK horizon , the global temperatures can only go down as almost all of the various major climate variables or sources of forcing are all pointing to cooling and they typically last at least 30 years . It appears to me that it is truly tragic that scientifically misinformed people still advise the government of Uk on climate .

  53. Joe says:

    richardscourtney says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:42 am

    The temperature measurements were made decades ago and GISS does not have a time-machine to go back and make more of them. But the GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why? In the absence of an answer to this question it has to be assumed that GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.

    —————————————————————————————————

    The part that (almost) concerns me more is the fairly regular adjusting of more recent measurements. Given that this has been the “biggest crisis mankind has ever faced” for the past couple of decades it strikes me that there is no excuse for getting measured temperatures within the past decade so wrong that they need adjusting – certainly not without 100% reliable metadata for station moves, instrumentation changes and so on to justify and quantify the adjustment.

    After all, they say this is our grandchildren’s future we’re playing with – don’t we owe to to them to at least get the instrumental data right?

  54. Berényi Péter says:

    Clearly, temperature doesn’t tell the full story about climate. Time to abandon those pesky thermometers and turn to the anger scale which is much more suitable to describe a complex phenomenon like this. It may also sell better in the mass media.

  55. herkimer says:

    For those who think that predictions for unprecedented global warming are “robust” after 16 years of no warming of which the last 10 years actually show a temperature decline , consider these climate factors :
    AO
    Winter AO was negative 3 of the last 4 years and declining from positive to negative since 1989. When the AO[ Arctic Oscillation] is negative like it was this past winter , more cold Arctic air creeps south with the presence of weakening westerlies.

    NAO
    Winter NAO level has been declining since 1989 and slowly trending negative. A negative NAO [ North Atlantic Oscillation] brings cold air to Northern Europe and more cold air outbreaks and more snowy winters for Eastern North America. There are weaker winter storms crossing the Atlantic Ocean
    PDO
    Mostly negative since September 2007
    Larger area of colder water in the eastern Pacific than in the central and western Pacific giving cooler atmosphere temperatures along western coast of North America . This weather is then blown east by the westerlies .

    AMO
    Still positive but shows some decline [seasonal?] AMO could go negative this decade. When it goes negative we can expect cooler temperatures in Western Europe and Eastern North America

    SOLAR
    Lowest sunspot numbers in 100 years [since 1906]. Current cycle is very low. We could have three such low cycles in a row. Although the mechanism is not completely understood, low sunspot periods correlate with reduced global air and ocean temperatures when measured on a decadal basis. When the running 11 year average sunspot number gets to about 60, the global temperatures level off and when it gets to around 40- 50 , the global temperatures start to decline like they are doing at the present . Currently it is at 35 which compares with the colder global temperatures that existed around 1700-1730, 1800-1830, and 1880-1920

    GLOBAL SST
    Global SST trend is negative or cooling during the last 10 years at a rate of 0. 007 C per year Northern Hemisphere oceans is cooling twice as fast as Southern Hemisphere. When solar cycles and ocean cycles are in sync and both are in decline or cooling, atmosphere temperatures also tend to decline.

    GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMP
    Global annual temperatures have been flat for 16 years but the temperature trend shows a decline during the last 10 years at 0.007 C per year

    GLOBAL WINTER TEMP
    The Northern hemisphere winter temperature anomalies show a declining trend for the last 16 years. This cooling is most evident at areas well inland. The year 2012 was the 4th snowiest since 1967, the start of hemispheric snow extent records. Berlin Germany has had 5 winters in a row below normal and is having its coldest March since records began in 1880. UK is having its coldest March temperatures in 50-100 years of 2.5 C .Only 1917, 1937, 1947 and 1962 had comparable low temperatures.

    EL NINO
    There is a lack of strong climate altering El Ninos. During typical past cool cycles the number of strong climate altering El Ninos drops to one per decade compared with 2 during the recent warm cycle. We may not have another El Nino for 3-5 years.

    SUDDEN STRATOSPHERIC WARMING [SSW]
    Stratospheric warming events happen when large atmospheric waves called Rossby waves, rise beyond the troposphere altitudes and into the stratosphere where they cause the stratosphere air to be compressed and warmed The process can then lead to changes in the high altitude wind directions from east to west , bring these high altitude easterlies down lower and move the jet stream further south. Some time it can split the polar vortex in two This results in colder Arctic air coming further south both over North America and Northern Asia and Europe. Recently [since 1998] these SSW events have become more frequent and earlier in the winter.

  56. Ed Hawkins says:

    Small correction – the original graph that the Daily Mail redrew was on a NCAS (not NCAR) blog here:

    http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/

    Ed.

  57. john parsons says:

    I didn’t see a link to the actual CCC response here: theccc.org.uk/blog/climate-science-remains-robust-despite-claims-in-the-mail/

    Interesting that three out of the four scientists referenced by The Mail actually disagree with their conclusions. JP

  58. Theo Goodwin says:

    A C Osborn says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Imagine if Lisa Jackson had owned a company that competed with the companies that want to build the Keystone pipeline.

  59. elmer says:

    There is a nice little article on Marco et al at RealClimate

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-1/#comment-325921

    I asked the question “Where’s the Hockey Stick?” and it was quickly deleted.

  60. atarsinc says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am “Will those that Rose criticizes address his criticisms? No.”

    Wrong. See the CCC post. JP

  61. peter_dtm says:

    Phil. says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:36 am

    No, Scenario A is the path not taken as expected by Hansen, the actual emissions are close to Scenario C for all but CO2 which was close to A & B

    /end quote

    Phil, CO2 is assumed to be THE driver if climate change by Hansen. Since we did not cut CO2 at all surely the real world CO2 figures (scenario A) is the correct path we were suposed to have followed ?

    In other words the prediction Scenario A is the CO2 curve empirical data followed, so we would expect the temperature (if Hansen’s prediction have any merit) to have been at a level that matches Scenario A CO2 ?

    The fact that temperature is nothing like this falsifies Scenario A (& I won’t embarress you by asking where the tropo warming EVERY GCCM predicts)

  62. Jim D says:

    GISTEMP agrees pretty well with HADCRUT until about 1998 when it has less of the El Nino effect and more of a rise after that, so definitely less flattening than HADCRUT post 1996 from these two differences, possibly because it has more polar variability in it.

  63. TImothy Sorenson says:

    Don’t know if this has been talked about but in the vein “We’re taking names.” Perhaps we should start heaping praise on those journalist who have ‘seen reason’ and used their ‘pen’ to fight the battle.

  64. vukcevic says:

    The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access
    while the agency conducts a review of the site’s content ………………………….

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

  65. Other_Andy says:

    More ‘Climate Porn’

    The Arctic circle is likely to experience explosive “greening”
    Iceshelves in Antarctica have been growing thanks to global warming.
    A worrying rise in sea levels in 2011 and 2012.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10874694

    Well, it is the first of April.

  66. KTWO says:

    AGW-Skeptic and others note that error bands mislead for the years before a prediction or projection or forecast – call it what you will – was made. (badly phrased but clear enough)

    So I was glad to see the note on this graph.

  67. William Astley says:
    March 31, 2013 at 10:02 am

    The majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has predicted to occur in tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the earth’s surface. This warming should have created a hot spot (warming region) in the tropics at 10 km. There is no observed tropical hot spot. If there was a tropical hot spot the tropics would have warmed. There is no observed 20th century warming in the tropics

    The 20th century warming that did occur is in high Northern latitudes, particularly in the Arctic and there is some warming in high Southern latitudes,

    A very good summary.

    It is deeply dishonest to claim surface warming without troposphere warming is evidence of GHG warming, when it is evidence of the exact opposite. It is evidence GHGs can not be the cause and the surface warming has some other cause.

    Although, I don’t believe it is necessary to invoke GCRs to explain the late 20th century warming (which is not to say they don’t play some role). Aerosol reductions in the urbanized and industrialized belts of the northern and southern hemisphere adequately explain the warming and the aerosol reductions closely co-incide with the warming. In addition Arctic warming follows the shutting down of most of the Soviet era aerosol polluting industries in the 1990s.

  68. Robert Austin says:

    Jim D says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am
    “HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do”

    Jim D,
    Maybe there is a good reason for not including polar temperatures. Like the fact that there are so few temperature stations up there that Hansen needs to extrapolate temperature for thousands of kilometers to get what they claim to be a polar temperature record. Witness the creativity of Stieg in smearing Antarctic Peninsula warming across vast areas of Antarctic mainland. And are we witnessing polar amplification or the polar seesaw?

  69. atarsinc says:

    richardscourtney says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:42 am
    “… GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why?”

    It seems to be a well accepted meme at WUWT that data adjustments are clouded in mystery. This is wrong. Even a cursory look at the organisations websites reveal the scientific reasoning behind any adjustments. All three major temp records provide their rationales and protocols.

    You may not agree with them. You may not like the results. But, to say they don’t exist is just plain wrong. JP

  70. Eliza says:

    Re Marcott et al They now state”
    “However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” This paper needs to be withdrawn immediately from Science or retracted as it contradicts their previous conclusions that it has been the hottest century etc… see CA

  71. Good for the Daily Mail. Challenging the alarm-ism that drives the politics. It won’t work though…Because we are run by the Con-Man.As explained here…

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/the-con-man/

  72. ntesdorf says:

    There are so many ‘Scientific’ bureaucrats out there still telling lies about the climate and its records and most politicians believe them as they themselves tell whoppers and can see like-minded folk who think in the ‘right’ way. The politicians think that they can use these useful bureaucrats to garner more money for themselves and the bureaucrats think that they can use these useful politicians to secure a lucrative future for themselves. At some stage the public must intervene to break up this mutual admiration society. Tar, feathers and a rail are admirable suggestions.

  73. RockyRoad says:

    I’m on my fourth reading of Atlas Shrugged–the epic novel about a world turned topsey-turvey when Men of the Mind (top industrialists, philosophers, businessmen, legal scholars, musicians and the like) go on strike by withholding their productivity (actually, they simply adopt the moral code of the majority that has demanded the rights to their production for centuries) . This majority (called Looters) have rejected truth as the basis of their moral code and without the Men of the Mind upon which they feed, the earth is soon cleansed because the Looters can’t survive the resulting famine and wars they inadvertently bring upon themselves (a classical case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg).

    We have a parallel with Climate Alarmists–men who reject truth, have adopted fantasy because of their desire to worship their own intellect, who demand we spend unimaginable sums of money on geoengineering based on faulty conclusions while adopting energy policies that destroy economies, nations, and potentially much of earth’s population.

    In Atlas Shrugged, it states that contradictions can’t exist–that if such are found, a simple check of the premises will find that one of them is wrong. There’s now a big contradiction between what the Mail and the CCC say about Earth’s temperature. A simple check with the instrumental record shows the Mail is right and the CCC is wrong. But if policies based on the CCC’s fantasies continue unabated, these Alarmists would be equivalent to Climate Looters and the end results would prove disastrous.

    It is time for a sea change.

  74. Manfred says:

    So, the Grantham Institute rears its ugly head again!

    Given that their stated ‘mission’ is: ‘ to help shape decision-making’, and: ‘to provide authoritative analysis and assessment of research outputs, communicating it in a policy-relevant way to decision makers’, the NCAR graph is rather becalming and it does hint at declining relevance. Sir Brian will have had his buttons pushed. So then, one wonders how he copes with IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007)?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/

  75. Resourceguy says:

    Look how they run to defend the barricades of failed climate models and tax policy to save their jobs and income. As the global temp falls away from the prediction with multi-decadal down cycles of PDO, AMO and 100 year low on the solar cycles, there will be less fervor and fewer of them rushing to defend over time. Of course they will be closer to guaranteed retirement at that point and taxpayers will be fleeced for a few more years.

  76. Rbravery says:

    Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful

  77. son of mulder says:

    ” Phil. says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:36 am

    No, Scenario A is the path not taken as expected by Hansen, the actual emissions are close to Scenario C for all but CO2 which was close to A & B which were expected by Hansen to not differ very much by 2012. So what should be compared to reality is somewhere between C and B.”

    I take your point about scenario A. I have written out 50 times beware of what you read on the internet. But as you say CO2 is close to A & B I’d go for B as representing Hansen’s predicted reality (given how it is defined in the actual paper) which as you say differs little from A at present time. Also as the chart shows changes in temperature I have no problem with the 3 scenarios being equal in 1987 to zero. I trust you are not suggesting that if they were plotted as predicted vs actual temperatures that A & B would be closer to actual.

    So summing up: Scenario B is what should be compared to Reality. Conclusion….the model is wrong.

  78. DirkH says:

    Kitefreak says:
    March 31, 2013 at 8:33 am
    “OK, the Daily Mail is full of celebtrity b*llocks etc., but, look, the MSM play a game with your heads. Forget about the form, concentrate on the the content. I don’t know who owns the Daily Mail, but I assume it is ultimately some behemoth corporation, which will no doubt have links to the rest of the MSM heads and thus share their agenda (control of the masses – see Bernase) and are willing to play their part – ‘the rebellious one’ – to make it look like we have a fair and balanced and ‘free’ press. Who knows?”

    Controlling shareholder of the trust that owns it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Harmsworth,_4th_Viscount_Rothermere

    A supporter of David Cameron the wikipedia says, well, maybe, who knows.
    No link to Bilderberg to be found. Now isn’t that strange.

  79. William McClenney says:

    In the present world of 140 characters or less, I am just not so sure any of this, or anything else, matters all that much, anymore.

    Unfortunately, you don’t even have to be a twit to lose your mental focus these days, the first sentence or two, three, is about as wide as H. sapiens sapiens bandwidth is nowadaze…….

    So the problem would seem to be how does one compress, comprehensibly, a message which details all of the adjustments of the 4 major anthropogenic datasets, denial of when we live (at possibly/probably the end of this most recent extreme interglacial), replete with past signal-to-noise ratios wildly beyond even AR4’s worst case scenarios into just one tweet?

    And therein lies the problem with “messaging” for the bulk of humanity. We know the bandwidth now. How to best use it becomes the most MANNtic of problems for post-modern MANN…….

  80. Wamron says:

    AGW _skeptic……………………..its called TIPPEX. Theres another called SCISSORS.

    No, really, just print it out, do the business, scan it and there you have it.

    The “original” we see here isnt the “original” anyway but a BMP or JPG. An image file.So the only software that can change it is photo-shop type editing. Save the image. Open it inthe editing app. Change it there with paint tools before re-saving it.

  81. Wamron says:

    …mouse over it and right click, then click “save image as”.

  82. Alex says:

    remove urban heat iland effect and the prediction is already outside the 95% band

  83. Wamron says:

    ……………I just did it. New version took three minutes. No way I can see of uploading it though.

  84. Bill Illis says:

    Why get all in your face with David Rose just because he is presenting factual information.

    The warmers believe in the theory. They have much invested, including reputations, in the theory already. They want all of us to believe in the theory. In some ways, this is just basic human nature, we want others to agree with us and, when we are wrong, we would rather just have it hidden away from view and swept under the rug.

    Its just that some people believe SO much in the theory, have invested so much in the theory, want others to agree with them so much, and want the contradictory evidence hidden from all views, that they do not want the factual evidence presented to the public at all.

    And we don’t know how far they will go to see this enacted. Michael Mann got dozens of people fired so we should not underestimate how far they will go. Mr. Rose is now targeted in various different ways. Some support, however small, would probably be appreciated.

  85. Denying the validity of someone’s religion can be dangerous. The Muslims only cut your head off. The IPCC has worse things in mind.

  86. alcheson says:

    Phil. says:
    “So what should be compared to reality is somewhere between C and B.”

    Really Phil??? So, you are saying that all this stuff about needing to cut back on CO2 emissions or we are all going to die is much ado about nothing?. Afterall, since China and India have been rapidly increasing production of CO2 and the US has done realtively nothing (except the tanking of the economy) to slow CO2 production, we still managed by to meet the conditions of scenario C. Quite impressive if you ask me. If we have met the supposed practically impossible to achieve scenario C without even trying, then what in the he** are we doing trying to pass carbon taxes and all these new environmental global warming regulations that are going to destroy our economy?

    Personally, based on the way that graph was presented to the public in 1988, we would definitely have best fit scenario A. We did NOTHING to stop CO2 growth. It was CO2 growth that was presented to the public as the cause of our problems and would soon lead to the end of life as we know it.

  87. Martin van Etten says:

    in my country we call this a 1st of april foolsday joke!

  88. TomRude says:

    Condescending MacCracken at his best: “Actually, I came to this site to find out what you all are talking about and what your reasoning is (having been off on other courses in recent past). Of course, being skeptical, I ask questions and sometimes offer differing views and explanations. What I am seeking is the best understanding—views have to be backed up, etc. and preferably in the peer-reviewed literature or headed there, but I do try to listen and inquire broadly.

    As a number of the so-called Skeptics will note, I have also gone out to various forums, often ones where views differed from mine to give talks, have paired discussions with so-called Skeptics, answer questions, etc. And I generally send in a lot of review comments on the various drafts of IPCC reports, national assessments, etc.

    What I have not seen is evidence that upsets the broad fundamentals of our understanding—still uncertainties in details, but basics stand up very well, in my view, so I do try to explain the fundamentals (e.g., there is back radiation, and glad to see it when others like Bill Kininmonth also say that). Mike
    ==
    That’s why he is on Yahoo and not here, or on Climateaudit…

  89. TomRude says:

    @ Elmer, on Realclimate Marcott’s response, I have no doubt this will be answered with interests at CA.

  90. Theo Goodwin says:

    atarsinc says:
    March 31, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    This is not the Guardian. Here we debate. If you have something to say in defense of those who criticized Rose then say it here. Links to other sites do not contribute to debate.

  91. Wamron says:

    Martin Van Etten:
    “in my country…”

    Martin Van Etten, do “men” in your country have any balls?
    You still have not responded to my offer made several weeks ago to settle the personal offence you are on record here as having committed towards me.

    Are you a worm?
    WHAT exactly ARE you?

  92. Wamron says:

    TOmRude….
    “What I have not seen is evidence that upsets the broad fundamentals of our understanding—still uncertainties in details,”

    Its the DETAILS that determine the validity of a thing.

    You have not made any argument or point in your comment. Its just a sort of shapeless, formless, pointless mumbling sound.

  93. Wamron says:

    RockyRoad…the problem with that scenario is that the Men of The Mind have long ago withdrawn from the world in as much as they watch on the side lines. This IS the world that results. i am trying to follow their example. I have been trying for a decade to simply not care. The affairs of men are the antics of ants. I have made great progress in this elective detachment. However, this heinous winter and trying to survive it in spite of the levies imposed upon me by…yes really, the NAZIs of the Environmentalist cabal has made the issues deeply, profoundly personal.

    I cannot express the visceral loathing, detestation and contempt I feel towards these truly worthless scum who subject me and millions worse off than me to circumstances that brink upon destruction, for the benefit of THEIR children and notional descendants.

    These people, are truly, profoundly, evil.

  94. Jer0me says:

    Yes, but ….:

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/expanding-ice-may-keep-antarctic-cool/story-fn5fsgyc-1226610060354

    Apparently Antarctica is now cooling, and the ice is now increasing (didn’t we know this all along?). And the cause? You guessed it:

    GLOBAL WARMING!

    Is there nothing this great trace gas CO2 cannot do?

  95. Bruckner8 says:

    If you’re going to be consistent, you have to admit that the black line has not left the red shaded area yet. I’m not going to get excited until it does…for over 12 months in a row.

  96. Jer0me says:

    ^^^ or could this be an April Fool’s report …. ?

    It’s so hard to tell!

  97. Chad Wozniak says:

    How said it is that so many people – the alarmist cabal – cannot be reached by reason and facts, but that is how it is. One wonders how they will be dispossessed, but one can expect them to fight to the bitter end and shrink from no atrocity in doing so.

    You will recall Lord Monckton’s account of the bureaucrats in Australia who tried to kill a farmer who was protesting their seizure of his water rights (without compensation, of course). And here is the US we have a Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-in Chief who thinks he has the right to execute a criminal suspect by executive order, forget the man’s rights uas a citizen nder the Sixth Amendment to a trial, to confront witnesses against him, and to be presumed uinnocent until proven guilty by due process of law in court. The rights apply regardless of how heinous the crime is that the person is accused of – so what if his crime is terrorism? That makes no difference, and in any other context this aummary execution wouild constitute fuirst-degree murder (and I believe this is the case here).

    I have no doubt that there are some in the alarmist cabal that would like global warming skep[tics also to be subject to drone attacks. I don’t think that given the increasingly tyrannucal posture of governments in countries that have caught the AGW disease, we can count on the law to protect our rights – it’s conceivable to me that we may have to physically defend them outselves.
    ..

  98. Dr Burns says:

    Amazingly the graph appeared in Fairfax’s very AGW biassed Sydney Morning Herald … with comments from Hansen, Pachauri and Mann.

  99. Juan Slayton says:

    atarsinc: It seems to be a well accepted meme at WUWT that data adjustments are clouded in mystery. This is wrong. Even a cursory look at the organisations websites reveal the scientific reasoning behind any adjustments. All three major temp records provide their rationales and protocols.

    The websites do indeed provide general discussion of the principles behind adjustments. But these discussions are so general that it is next to impossible to know exactly what adjustments have been made to any particular station record. In fact it is next to impossible to know where the original record(s) originated.

    But perhaps I am wrong, and am just further down the learning curve than I imagine. If so, I’d sure appreciate it if you can answer a question that has been bugging me for months. What is the source of the GISS temperature data for San Luis Obispo Polytech (COOP 947854) from June, 2005 to September, 2011? Hint: NOAA digitized station records show that data attributed to 947854 was in fact coming from weather underground station KCASANLU4: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html?_page=2&state=CA&foreign=false&stationID=047851&_target3=Next+%3E

    Where does GISS explain what they have done here?.

  100. atarsinc says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    March 31, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Of the four scientists quoted in the Mail article, three (Myles Allen, James Annan and Piers Forster) have since publicly criticised it.

    Ed Hawkins, who created the graph, has also taken issue with the article’s interpretation of it.

    With accurate models we would expect about 3 years of observed temperature in the past 60 to be below the 90% range and 3 years above it. Nothing inconsistant with Hawkin’s chart.

    Keep in mind the CCC’s stated goal: “…to keep a 50:50 probability of a temperature rise close to 2°C and a negligible chance of reaching 4°C by 2100.” Given their charge, arguing for a halving of the IPCC’s sensitivity range (as The Mail does), is ridiculous.

    Apparently you’re willing to take the time to read Rose’s simplistic prattle Theo, but unwilling to take the time to look at a reasoned reply to his criticisms. Typical. JP

  101. Other_Andy says:

    Bruckner8 says:
    ” I’m not going to get excited until it does…for over 12 months in a row.”

    Fair enough.
    However, looking at the graph, it seems that the apocalypse they promised hasn’t eventuated.
    (Ice free Arctic, sea swamping coastal properties, no more snow, dying oceans, extinct polar bears and boiling oceans, increased ‘extreme’ weather…….)

  102. RockyRoad says:

    atarsinc says:
    March 31, 2013 at 9:20 pm


    Keep in mind the CCC’s stated goal: “…to keep a 50:50 probability of a temperature rise close to 2°C and a negligible chance of reaching 4°C by 2100.” Given their charge, arguing for a halving of the IPCC’s sensitivity range (as The Mail does), is ridiculous.

    Apparently you’re willing to take the time to read Rose’s simplistic prattle Theo, but unwilling to take the time to look at a reasoned reply to his criticisms. Typical. JP

    And yet nobody has demonstrated that CO2 imposes a positive forcing on climate. THAT is the crux of the whole CAGW theory and lack of such evidence destroys the logic of the CCC’s “stated goals”. You’d think they’d start with basic assumptions and prove those before going off half-cocked and making fools of themselves. You haven’t joined them, have you?

  103. Larry in Texas says:

    These guys from the CCC love to use the word “robust” in the description of their predictions and contentions. I actually prefer to use the British slang word “bollocks” to describe them. It is a far better and more accurate use of the English language to describe their (now) failed predictions. So, bollocks!!

  104. William Astley says:

    There are sets of unresolved scientific issues and communication/paradigm change issue that needs to be worked out.

    There appears to be an Urban bias in the GISS and HADCRUT3 temperature data sets. GISS appears to have some other problems.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/offset/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12

    There is the unresolved issue of what physically caused the 20th century Arctic warming.

    The majority of the predicted AGW warming was in the tropics not in the Arctic. The fact that the majority of the observed 20th century warming was in the Arctic, not in the tropics and there is no observed tropical troposphere warming at roughly 10 km (the AGW theory predicts there will be warming in the tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the surface of the planet which will in turn warm the tropics) provides support for the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming has not due to AGW.

    Svensmark estimated that 75% of the 20th century warming was due to solar magnetic cycle effects. As there is an abrupt solar magnetic cycle underway it reasonable to expect that at roughly 75% of the 20th century warming will reverse. There was in the past a 10 to 12 year delay in cooling when the sun abruptly changed from a very active cycle to a Maunder minimum. As there is now observed cooling, it appears whatever mechanism inhibits the cooling is complete.

    It is difficult to imagine how the extreme AGW paradigm pushers can explain significant Arctic cooling. Perhaps the China particulate emissions could be used to replace AGW and a new climate change crisis global cooling could be developed. Media reports from the 1970’s could be reused to push the dangers of cooling climate change and there could be more focus on CO2 affects on ocean pH.

  105. George Lawson says:

    “Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised .  .  . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.”

    If 16 years of no cooling is not the result of ‘robust science’, then perhaps Hoskins can tell us what his description of robust science is. Why do these people continue to come out with such ridiculous statements to support their busted theories, rather than admit they got-it-wrong in the first place?

  106. 4 eyes says:

    I wonder what Sir Brian Hoskins or the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College stand to lose if persons more influentials or powerful than the good Sir decide that the scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks is not very robust ar all.

  107. Lei says:

    They are out of the red zone allready at the beginning of the prediction? How can that be?

  108. Wamron says:

    Re Theo Goodwin. Well said sir. You see these URL-quote meisters and wonder…do they even read what they cite before URLing.

  109. Joe:

    re your post addressed to me at March 31, 2013 at 12:39 pm.

    I think you will want to read this

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    I think all of it will interest you and suggest its Appendix B would be of especial interest.

    Richard

  110. atarsinc:

    I take severe exception to anonymous trolls who post falsehoods and make unfounded accusations.

    Your post at March 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm provides a clear example of this reprehensible practice. It says in total

    richardscourtney says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:42 am

    “… GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why?”

    It seems to be a well accepted meme at WUWT that data adjustments are clouded in mystery. This is wrong. Even a cursory look at the organisations websites reveal the scientific reasoning behind any adjustments. All three major temp records provide their rationales and protocols.

    You may not agree with them. You may not like the results. But, to say they don’t exist is just plain wrong. JP

    Bollocks! They don’t exist!
    If they existed and if you knew them then you would have answered my simple question.
    And the sophistries on the web sites do NOT explain and justify the “adjustments”.

    How do I know they don’t exist?
    Read this

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Please note that it is a Parliamentary Submission so would be perjury if untrue and it addresses an email from me (provided as its Appendix A) which was leaked as part of Climategate 1.

    I would accept an apology for your behaviour.

    Richard

  111. Moderator:

    I have made a post which seems to have gone in the ‘bin’ (and so does a subsequent note informing you of this).

    Please retrieve my post.

    Richard

  112. Martin van Etten says:

    att Wamron

    why are you so eager to agression, go to the sportschool and do some boxing;

  113. Moderator:

    My post has now appeared.
    Thankyou.

    Richard

  114. jonnie26 says:

    “asking turkeys to vote for Christmas”…
    insider trading vested interest used to be a crime

  115. RockyRoad says:

    Martin van Etten says:
    April 1, 2013 at 6:30 am

    att Wamron

    why are you so eager to agression, go to the sportschool and do some boxing;

    With our way of life hanging in the balance? Rather than suggest that someone cool down, may I suggest you get excited?

  116. Lei:

    At April 1, 2013 at 3:12 am you ask the reasonable question

    They are out of the red zone allready at the beginning of the prediction? How can that be?

    It is because the “committed warming” has not occurred.

    For detailed explanation you can read IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”. 7

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” over those two decades then global temperature needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (presumably it has gone to sup at the same pub as Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’). But this “committed warming” is shown in the projection which you question.

    I hope this post provides sufficient answer to your query. And I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models . If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  117. herkimer says:

    No where is the lack of robustness in the claim of unprecedented warming for the decades ahead more apparent than in the climate records that the UK government itself maintains through the Met Office . The attached curve clearly shows a cyclic pattern to Uk winters and this pattern shows that the peaking of warmer winters is over for the next 20 -30 years and UK is again heading for cooler winters like in the period of the 1960-1980s or the period at the beginning of the 20 th Century . That is why many of the recent winter cold records that are being set are similar to those of the previous periods,

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

  118. Martin van Etten says:

    RockyRoad
    I have some discussion with Wamron, not with you; I like to keep it that way;

  119. When predictions are conflated with projections, as done here, a consequence is for improper conclusions about the methodology of global warming research to be drawn from equivocations via the equivocation fallacy. For this reason, the editor of wattsupwiththat.com should reject submissions that conflate the two words.

  120. Terry Oldberg:

    Your post at April 1, 2013 at 12:47 pm says in total

    When predictions are conflated with projections, as done here, a consequence is for improper conclusions about the methodology of global warming research to be drawn from equivocations via the equivocation fallacy. For this reason, the editor of wattsupwiththat.com should reject submissions that conflate the two words.

    You have failed to define your “equivocation fallacy” despite repeated requests, but in this case it is not relevant.

    In the graph under discussion, the coloured zones from 2000 to the present and on to 2020 are clear predictions and NOT projections. To date the predictions have failed.

    Those predictions are based on the asserted existence of “committed warming”. This is explained in the answer I have provided to Lei in my post at April 1, 2013 at 8:22 am.

    Richard

  121. son of mulder says:

    ” KTWO says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    AGW-Skeptic and others note that error bands mislead for the years before a prediction or projection or forecast – call it what you will – was made. (badly phrased but clear enough)”

    And the other thing to consider is that if one assumes the models to be correct then the reason why the actual reading doesn’t hit the prediction (or projection) at any time should be purely to do with errors in the temperature readings. These would be expected to be randomly scattered around the predicted temperature but since the start of the prediction they are all running more and more low of the prediction ie reality has a cold bias vs the correct projections

    What should be shown is the prediction based on the science and error bars around the actual readings. Now that would make the predictions look even more pathetic.

    The whole concept that the prediction can anything other than a one dimensional curve based on the best science is crazy. This is not quantum theory.

  122. Keith Sketchley says:

    Uh, “elmer”, what is the purpose of the error bands?
    Answer: ??

    How have the predictions been used by alarmists?
    Answer: they use the high values.

    What is reality?
    Answer: the trend of the black line is level, about to go below predictions (as the annotation points out!).

    What is your point?
    Answer: ??

    Same questions for “Bruckner8” and others who try to obfuscate.

  123. Earth’s orbital debris

Comments are closed.