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.
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.
Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful
” 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.
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.
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…….
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.
…mouse over it and right click, then click “save image as”.
remove urban heat iland effect and the prediction is already outside the 95% band
……………I just did it. New version took three minutes. No way I can see of uploading it though.
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.
Denying the validity of someone’s religion can be dangerous. The Muslims only cut your head off. The IPCC has worse things in mind.
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.
in my country we call this a 1st of april foolsday joke!
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…
@ur momisugly Elmer, on Realclimate Marcott’s response, I have no doubt this will be answered with interests at CA.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
^^^ or could this be an April Fool’s report …. ?
It’s so hard to tell!
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.
..
Amazingly the graph appeared in Fairfax’s very AGW biassed Sydney Morning Herald … with comments from Hansen, Pachauri and Mann.
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?.