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.
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
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…….)
atarsinc says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:20 pm
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?
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!!
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.
“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?
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.
They are out of the red zone allready at the beginning of the prediction? How can that be?
Re Theo Goodwin. Well said sir. You see these URL-quote meisters and wonder…do they even read what they cite before URLing.
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
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
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
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
att Wamron
why are you so eager to agression, go to the sportschool and do some boxing;
Moderator:
My post has now appeared.
Thankyou.
Richard
“asking turkeys to vote for Christmas”…
insider trading vested interest used to be a crime
Martin van Etten says:
April 1, 2013 at 6:30 am
With our way of life hanging in the balance? Rather than suggest that someone cool down, may I suggest you get excited?
Lei:
At April 1, 2013 at 3:12 am you ask the reasonable question
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
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
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/
RockyRoad
I have some discussion with Wamron, not with you; I like to keep it that way;
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.
Terry Oldberg:
Your post at April 1, 2013 at 12:47 pm says in total
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
” 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.
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.
Earth’s orbital debris