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.
Have they been able to model the MWP that only occurred in Europe, lasting for 300 years, yet the rest of planet earth remained 3 degree’s cooler for the same period of time?
observa says:
November 1, 2013 at 1:16 am
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.
Unsupported assertion by Slatts. When and where did “the heir” say that? Given “the heir’s” record on so many other subjects on which he spouts I’m surprised that Slatts accords him so much reliability. We poms don’t.
Perhaps the only good thing about him succeeding his mother (eventually) is that he will have to stop making such foolish political statements.
Stephen Rasey. I am no expert, but my understanding is the votes of no confidence are on the Government, not individual ministers; including the Prime Minister. Such votes only occur in the House of Commons.
I believe the procedure to challenge Baroness Verma would be to move a Point of Privilege; which takes precedence over all other business. This would be an appeal to the Lord Chancellor to rule that BV had mislead the House. It would then be up to the Lord Chancellor to rule whether the House had, in fact, been mislead. Precisely what sanctions occur if the Lord Chancellor rules that the House has been misleads, I don’t know. As you can imagine, such a ruling would be very rare indeed.
Sandip Verna has exactly the right qualifications to be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change.
After school she “embarked on higher education courses in psychology and then a business degree, successfully operating a high fashion hosiery business before setting up in the service sector with a care business”. As she had twice been defeated as a parliamentary candidate David Cameron made her into a life peeress. She ticked all three of the right boxes. She was a conservative, she was a woman and she came from an ethnic minority.
But why put her into the Dept. for Climate Change and not the Department for Business Innovation and Skills where her real background and talents appear to lie?
Sadly we do not have anything resembling a deocracy here in the Britain.
All the numpties sing from the same hymn sheet – with 5 or 6 honourable exceptions
I was amused by Craig at 4-01 who did a good parody of the state of play.
But … being employed at the Carnoustie Golf Centre where I meet and greet hundreds of American Country Club golfers, I can assure him – with 95% certainty –
that they are CAGW sceptics.
By the way 100% of short putts never go in the hole Craig.
Yesterday we had the highest tide of the year here. Someone wondered if the high sea level was connected to Global Warming.
This prompted me to pen the following ditty.
Preffered Lies
The North Sea is not rising
It’s just steady as she goes,
We’re in an interglacial
We’ve got rid of giant ice flows;
Old fishermen now tell me
That it really is a beach,
Trying to launch their lobster boats
When the sea is out of reach.
This land was once encumbered
With a massive load of ice.
Thank God the world is warming
The last ice age was not nice;
I cannot walk on water
Like that savant Albert Gore,
I’m glad it’s just a sand wedge
From the sea up to my door.
So come and play Carnoustie
The course runs round the shore,
Some parts below sea level
That should not affect your score;
We have no Global Warming
You may well prefer your lies,
The locals know their weather
They do not rely on scrys.
Matt, in all honesty, areas to the east got more rain, as was forecast AND as the expected precipitation maps showed, AND it was mentioned in the DFW ‘Forecast Discussion’ that a dry slot with considerable subsidence was coming into the area from the west and would be a player and therefore would make this a ‘difficult call’ on actual precip amounts in the DFW area …
And don’t forget the flooding / 11 plus some inches of rain received in Central Texas …
.
My wife asked me what the source of the graph in the article is and I could not say. Please publish a title and source so she will feel it is valid to discuss the graph with me, she is a tenured STEM professor who scoffs at opinions.
Zek202, you ask for the origin of the graph. I did not put it up; Anthony did. I am almost certain it is the one quoted in the latest IPCC AR5.. I will check to see if \I can find it.
Zek 202 I am pretty sure this is correct; but I cannot be certain. The graph above was produce by Anthony. The original can be found in the IPCC AR5 Chapter 11, Figure 11.25.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf
This has been discussed on the blogosphere. See
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/#more-13310
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/#more-95594
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/
Perhaps we ought to take a close look at Baroness Verna’s statement before deciding whether or not she is being misleading or incorrect. She opens with ….
True – and a statement that the likes of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer among others would probably agree with. Note that there is no attempt by Verna to quantify the “global increase in temperature”.
Undoubtedly True.
Again – very likely true. We’ve seen a fairly average solar cycle 23 and are currently witnessing a weak solar cycle 24 with no obvious drop in temperatures.
If there is a weakness in Baroness Verna’s case it is the magnitude of the expected warming. It is this that must be challenged. Unfortunately, the ‘sceptic side’ insist that (take your pick) (a) there is no warming (b) it’s all down to the sun (c) CO2 causes cooling (d) the increase in atmospheric CO2 is nothing to do with human activity and (e) I’m sure there are others I’ve forgotten.
There is a reason that climate models have over-estimated warming and that is because they over-estimate feedback and, as a result, over-estimate Climate Sensitivity. There will be warming over the coming decades but not at the magnitude projected by the models. That’s the issue we should be focusing on.
John Finn likes theose assertions. Problem is, that’s all they are.
Saying, “Very likely true” does not make an assertion true. It is simply another baseless assertion.
In statistical terms “very likely” has a meaning. The evidence to date tells us that solar activity is unlikely to have a major influence on the mean global temperature.
However, talking of baseless assertions. On another thread you posted a number of comments in which you suggested I was a “supporter” of the Mann et al hockey stick – despite the fact that I never mentioned the Hockey Stick. You clearly didn’t see my final post on that thread, so let me draw your attention to this WUWT post from 2009.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
which includes the following
So have you got that? In 2004, a full 5 years before Climategate, I was challenging Mike Mann about the divergence between the proxy data and the thermometer record. This divergence was the reason for the ‘Hide the Decline’ trick.
John Finn,
After going through the entire thread you linked to, with more than 300 posts, I cannot find your comment. Or a comment that I made, for that matter. Maybe my eyes were glazing over, that’s possible.
Also, if I may be redundant, saying, “‘Very likely true’ does not make an assertion true.” Which was my original point.
You also declare that certain things are “Undoubtedly true”.
It must be wonderful to be so certain. But no skeptic would be that certain.
Probably something to do with the strawman arguments you introduced.
John,
Grow up. You referredto specific comments, which I can’t find.
If there is a comment you want me to read, post the time and date and I’ll read it.
If you go back about 4 posts on this thread you’ll find this comment
Towards the end of the comment I provides this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
which includes the following
I have linked to the WUWT post and directly to the Realclimate post elsewhere on WUWT. This was in response to your accusation I am a “Hockey Stick” supporter. The links provide clear evidence that I have challenged Michael Mann himself on the Hockey Stick graph. In particular I challenged him on the “Hide the Decline” trick. The online exchange between Mann and myself took place in December 2004.
This, then shows, that I was aware of the “trick” (if not the exact detail) in 2004 – around 5 years before “Climategate”.
John, anyone who claims, as you did, that global temperatures are recently accelerating is, IMHO, a hockey stick supporter.
The long term rise in global T is not accelerating. Graphs upon request.