WUWT reader Jim Cripwell writes in a comment
I’m so annoyed with this…From today’s GWPF, I find http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-government-no-global-cooling-centuries/
I quote:
“The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con): The UK government has made substantial investment in research that concerns the likelihood and timing of future changes in global and regional climate.
All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”
So, presumably the UK Met. Office used the IPCC models to prepare this reply. It is given in the House of Lords, by a Peer of the Realm, so by the rules of the British Parliament, it OUGHT to be accurate. Since the climate models are completely incapable of producing accurate predictions, the answer given by Baroness Verma is little more than a pack of lies.
It was this sort of statement by the Met. Office a few years ago that persuaded Heathrow Airport not to invest in snow clearing equipment, so the a mere 5 inches of snow closed one of the busiest airports in the world for several days. 5 inches of snow here is Ottawa, Canada, would barely cause any delays in service.
Surely it is about time that someone with both authority and courage to stand up and say this nonsense of CAGW must stop before even more damage is done.
=============================================================
meanwhile:
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s just another promise by a politician and therefore it will not last much past the next election, so by about the middle of 2016 we’ll being told that the climate is cooling and we must be taxed more and it was all the previous lots fault.
Good Lord!
http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=7683
I can understand why they used to lock them away in the Tower or behead them now.
I trust you’ll all join Christopher and myself in a rousing rendition of- ‘Long live the Queen!’
It’s not so much what Verma did say as much as what she didn’t say, namely the areas of climate knowledge (uncertainty) denied to her by the soothsayers she consulted. One area of knowledge she ought to learn of is the declining magnetic field strength of the sun and the potential implications that may have for temperatures here on Earth.
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/
She, like the IPCC, failed to even acknowledge the possibility that the climate may actually cool. Given the essentially chaotic nature of climate and the historical record, cooling is a very real possibility and a far greater threat to civilisation.
She has allowed herself to be fooled by the so called experts. How does that Feynman quote go?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
The vermin of which we speak is unelected, a prime creator of the climate change act and vested in mind and wallet.
She will spend the rest of her life denying her part in increased cold deaths, impoverishment of the children of the realm and her immeasurable stupidity.
I’m so cross I’d better not say any more…
Since her response is framed around the IPCC model ensemble and only the model output, her response is entirely ‘accurate’. It doesn’t mean that it is a true reflection of reality, just that it is accurate. Kind of like physics exams I used to take where the prof would give you some credit for a wrong answer derived from incorrect data, they would write ‘correct for data’, implying you used the correct method to solve the problem but your initial data was incorrect. So her response is ‘correct for data’.
The last statement, ” Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale” isn’t inaccurate, it is just unjustified, especially the volcanic activity. Is the UK MET Office capable of predicting volcanic activity over century timescales? She might be right, she might be wrong. However, again, the statement is derived from model output and only model output (a nice circular logic chain ensues), but, the models are designed to allow only a minor impact from solar & volcanic activity so it’s little wonder that the model output shows little effect from solar and volcanic activity.
What about model outputs other than temperature? I would guess that most of the models with high temps are dependent on other outputs that are even further out of step from reality than temperature outputs.
“Surely it is about time that someone with both authority and courage to stand up and say this nonsense of CAGW must stop before even more damage is done.”
There are so many people with so many vested interests in the continuation of the myth it won’t be easily stopped.
Perhaps if this crowd…
http://www.raeng.org.uk/
…could be persuaded to look into it and publicly report it might slow things down a bit (in the UK at least).
All of our best weather models predicted the DFW metroplex to get between 2-4 inches of rain on October 30th/31st not more than 24 hours before the rain event was to begin. Final tally at DFW airport = 0.11 inches.
Steven Mosher, you write “Their response is perfectly factual”
True, but I think you are an American, and may not be familiar with the way the British Parliament operates. The US has a written constitution, and the rules for Congress are written down. The UK does not have a constitution, and there are few rules; only precedent. The Canadian Parliament operates the same sort of way, so I am familiar with how the UK operates.
An answer to a question must be factual, but it does not have to answer the question. There was a recent incident in the House of Lords where the same, identical, question was asked 7 times, and received 6 answers that were factual but irrelevant. The 7th time the question was answered.
But there is another tradition that the answer must not mislead the House. I would suggest that Baroness Verma’s answer was misleading.
Nial, you suggest opposition might come from the engineering community. I personally, would welcome official opposition from any accredited organization. The difficulty is finding one with the courage to do so.
I notice that the chart has two keys. One says that the circles are the average of two baloons. The other says the circles are the average of four baloons. Careless mistakes like this, if discovered, can be damaging to the cause.
Sorry, posted that on wrong page.
Schrodinger’s Cat says “What can we do about it?”
As for the politicians and CAGW proponents in academia, probably not anything we can do until we undermine their popular support among the masses. So how do we do that?
The problem is that the regular CAGW supporter has no idea what the facts are; that at least is what my experience in trying to speak with them indicates. No matter what data, what facts, what logic you present to them, nine times out of ten, their response is “but 97% of all scientists say you are wrong!” No thought, no analysis, no argument of data — just the ill-informed 97% response.
The lesson is that you cannot use facts and logic on someone who has embraced a counter-factual fantasy. The good news is that a large proportion of the CAGW faithful do, actually, wish the best (however irrationally they may think to implement it) for their fellow humans. Use that as a lever. Don’t argue facts, argue ethics. “I cannot support a carbon tax; it would mean millions of poor people in the third world could not afford energy.” Or perhaps, “Ethanol? Do you have any idea how ethanol subsides have driven up the cost of corn? Tell the farmers in Central America why ethanol is more important than whether their children get to eat today.” Don’t tell them they are bad. Tell them why you refuse to do evil. “Sure, wind farms would be a good idea if they were safe – if they ever figure out how to make them without wiping out the birds and bats. I just can’t bring myself to support killing off endangered species.”
The average CAGW proponent has been lied into thinking that they are supporting saving the planet. Facts did not convince them, it was the “saving the planet” part that got their support; after all, everyone likes to hold a high opinion of themselves. Explain how you cannot support what they are doing because it is NOT “saving the planet.”
There is plenty to be green about and it remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
* toxic environmental pollution. (Whatever is asserted CO2 is neither toxic nor pollutant).
* over fishing.
* rain forest clearance, especially for the production of biofuels.
* biosphere destructive industrial farming at all levels.
* wild habitat destruction throughout the biosphere.
* many green and renewable energy activities actually detrimental to the environment.
The problem is that the thought of controlling CO2 has overshadowed all these immediate, important and worthwhile activities even for well-meaning green activists, whilst as you say wishing the best for their fellow humans.
Baroness Verma said,
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”
. . .”
– – – – – – – –
She was inaccurate. What she said is not observed in the actual Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS).
The observed EAS prevails over her assessment of the IPCC’s model derived assessment.
Actually, B Verma is setting up the IPCC for the fall guy. Thanks.
John
Hoser @ur momisugly 7:24pm
Sad to say, but your analysis is absolutely right, especially about the sub-standard infrastructure.
Isn’t this at least a falsifiable claim?
In the UK there is total subservence to the scientific elite…and .the politicians believe every word of it and with few exceptions never do their own research. The BBC which is influenced in so many areas by the Guardian view of the world is no longer fit for purpose. They refuse to give a balanced presentation of the facts and have effectively told us to shut up….no debate. It’s over.
Well the chickens are coming home to roost…we can see it….but our politicians and media have swallowed the AGW fantasy hook line and sinker to the point where those of us that disagree are looked on as mad…in need of educating.
It’s that bad, they have no idea.
If climate science had to undergo quality assurance testing and not the really soft option of peer review there would be no talk about pauses. Instead the QA people would have demanded that the deviation be explained immediately. Obviously it is not possible to predict random events that cause the noisy temperature behaviour but in the following year there is no excuse for not getting a perfect match every year if they had the correct explanation for the climate’s behaviour.
The models would have to be rerun using actual data on CO2 and all differences justified using data on any irregular events from the preceding year. That is of course if they scientists had got away in the first place with not dong the models for at least a hundred different zones and proved that CO2 explained the behaviour in all of them equally well.
Just emailed Lady Verma with a couple of questions.
1/ Has she considered model output and real world observations
2/ If she has, what are her thoughts regarding the performance of the models v`s observation
3/ If not carried out comparison, explain why she thought this inappropriate use of time.
Thast could be me for a spell in the Tower but you got to start somewhere.
It’s interesting to see how many sensible people there are in Ottawa 🙂
As for a couple of degrees of warming, it won’t make much difference here as the temperatures vary 60 degrees Celsius every 6 months.
@jim Cripwell at 6:39 am
Is there a tradition in Parlament that a Secretaries and Under-Secretaries can not be subject to votes of “No Confidence” no matter how obtuse and misleading their answers? Are votes of “No Confidence” limited to bringing down the Prime Minister?
As the worm turns…
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/31/lawrence-solomon-a-global-cooling-consensus/
Lawrence Solomon: A global cooling consensus
National Post
[excerpt]
“When we have had periods where the Sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters” echoed climatologist Dennis Wheeler from Sunderland University, in a Daily Express article entitled “Now get ready for an ‘Ice Age’ as experts warn of Siberian winter ahead.”
Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland back up theories that support the Sun’s importance in determining the climate on Earth. In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for major shifts in climate.
In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all-but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen.
As NASA highlighted in a press release in January of this year, in citing the NRC report on solar variations: “There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.” To bolster the argument that solar activity could explain the Little Ice Age as well as lesser changes, NASA then listed some dozen authorities, including Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose research on other sun-like stars in the Milky Way suggest that “the Sun’s influence could be overpowering.”
“global increase in temperature during the 21st century¨? What increase? I certainly don´t see any global increase in temperature in 21st century. Went the british government so haywire that they still believe the crooks from the IPCC even after the chain of the unusually cold winters which already costed them fortune?
“Other effects such as solar changes…are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”
This looks one can say only the infamous yes minister.