Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.
Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.
Figure 1. Projected global warming from 1988-2019 on three scenarios (above), and from 1988-2060 on scenario A only (below), based on Hansen (1988), who testified before the U.S. Congress that June that scenario A was his business-as-usual case. The trend from 1988-2050 on that scenario (arrowed) is approximately 0.5 Cº/decade.
IPCC (1990: p. xi) projected warming of 0.2-0.5 Cº/decade to 2100. IPCC (1995: p. 6) projected 0.1-0.35 Cº/decade. IPCC (2001: p. 8) projected 0.13-0.43 Cº/decade to 2050. IPCC (2007: p. 13, table SPM.3) projected 0.11-0.64 Cº/decade to 2100.
Figure 2. Near-term warming projections (2005-2050) relative to 1986-2005, based on 42 models (colors) against observations (black). The second-order draft of IPCC (2013) projected global warming at 0.4-1.0 Cº over 30 years (red arrows), equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade. The final draft projected warming at 0.4-0.7 Cº over 30 years (green arrows), equivalent to just 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade. Diagram based on IPCC (2013, Fig. 11.25a).
The second-order draft of IPCC (2013: fig. 11.33) had projected 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade to 2050. However, the final draft slashed this projection to 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade (Fig. 2), the IPCC’s best guess being closer to the lower than to the upper bound of the revised range.
The projected range in the second-order draft had been consistent with the models, but the revised range in the final draft was at the low end of models’ projections (Fig. 3). Implicitly, the IPCC no longer accepts that models accurately project warming.
The IPCC says:
“Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions – which would cause significant but temporary cooling – and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability) that the GMST [global mean surface temperature] anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005, will be in the range 0.3°C–0.7°C (expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence).” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11-52).
Figure 3. Above: Models’ global warming projections, 2016-2035 vs. 1986-2005, against the IPCC’s projected interval of 0.4-1.0 K over 30 years, equivalent to 0.13-0.33 K decade–1 (between the gray dotted lines, based on IPCC 2013, 2nd draft, fig. 11.33c). Below: Final draft’s revised interval of 0.3-0.7 K over 30 years or 0.10-2.33 K decade–1, visibly at the low end of models’ projections (based on IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25c). This implicit rejection of the models’ forecasting skill has passed unnoticed until now. Reviewers of the second draft were not consulted about the change in the IPCC’s key near-term projections, though many had argued for it.
The IPCC’s explicit reliance on its own “expert assessment” rather than upon the models’ projections is a significant climbdown. However, even its reduced best estimate of 0.13 Cº/decade may still be on the high side. Observed outturn since 1950 has been below 0.11 Cº/decade (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Global mean surface temperature anomalies and 0.11 Cº/decade least-squares trend, January 1950 to November 2013 (from HadCRUT4 data).
That is not all. Despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for almost 13 years (mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, & UAH temperature data: Fig. 5), or, by satellite measurements, for more than 17 years (RSS, 2013: Fig. 6), and no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties for 18 years (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 7).
Figure 5. Monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) and least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue: mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH data), January 2001 to November 2013, showing no global warming for almost 13 years notwithstanding continuing rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration (gray).
Figure 6. Despite a near-linear increase of 2 μatm/year in CO2 concentration (NOAA, 2013, gray), the least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) has been zero for 17 years 3 months (207 months).
Figure 7. HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies and trend, February 1996 to November 2013, showing a linear trend entirely within and hence indistinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.
In the light of the growing divergence between projection and observation, a direct comparison between the IPCC’s now-reduced near-term global warming projections and observed temperature change since 2005 is of value as a performance indicator for the models’ global-warming projections.
Fig. 8 shows such a comparison, based on the downgraded projections in IPCC (2013, fig. 11.25a: see Fig. 2 above). In the nine years since 2005, a divergence of 0.15 Cº has occurred.
Figure 8. Orange region: Models’ projections of global warming, January 2005 to November 2013, on the interval 1.33 [1.0, 2.33] Cº/century (from IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25a). The second draft’s mid-range estimate is the final draft’s high-end estimate; the former low-end estimate is now the central estimate. Thick red trend-line: central projection of 0.12 K warming over the 107-month period, equivalent to 1.33 Cº/century. Gray curve and trend-line: monthly CO2 concentration anomalies (NOAA, 2013) and 18 μatm (198 μatm/century) trend, which caused 0.24 W m–2 forcing (or 0.35 W m–2 including other anthropogenic forcings). Of the 0.21 Cº warming projected to arise from this forcing, almost half was previously committed. Thick bright blue trend-line: Global cooling of 0.03 Cº (0.30 Cº/century: mean of five datasets). Over the period, the models over-predicted global warming by 0.15 Cº (1.6 Cº/century).
Multiple lines of evidence now confirm that the models and consequently the IPCC have overestimated global warming. Yet neither that misconceived organization nor any of its host of unthinking devotees has displayed any remorse. Instead, they persist in maintaining that the warming is temporarily paused, though they cannot really explain why; or they blame particulate aerosols, their get-out-of-jail-free fudge-factor; or they pretend warming is really continuing unabated, saying it has gone into hiding deep in the oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it, or that the Earth-atmosphere system has a fever driven by four atom-bombs’-worth of heat content increase every second.
What they are not prepared to countenance, notwithstanding the real-world, measured evidence, is the growing probability that they and their precious models have so badly misunderstood the climate, or so well understood it and so badly misrepresented it, that global warming is simply not going to occur at anything like any of the exaggerated rates that they had until now so confidently over-predicted.
Do not underestimate the importance of the IPCC’s climbdown, albeit that it is furtive and that there is not a hint of it in the Summary for Policymakers – the only part of the latest assessment that lazy politicians and incurious journalists may ever get around to reading.
Figure 9. Five projections of global warming, 1990-2050, compared with the linear trends on two observed datasets. IPCC projections are mid-range estimates. The trend (green) on the HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies reflects the warming at 0.11 K decade–1 observed since 1950. The trend (dark green) on the RSS satellite data reflects the zero trend that has now persisted for more than 17 years. Both observed trends are extrapolated to 2050.
If anyone ever again tries to tell you The Science Is Settled, as the now-axed Klimate Kommissariat in Australia is still trying to do in its latest taxpayer-funded propaganda sheet, point to Fig. 9 and ask two questions.
First, point to the red zone marked Projections and ask which of the very wide range of official projections The Science has Settled upon.
Secondly, point to the green zone marked Observations and ask why the real climate has so persistently failed to pay any attention to the Settled Science.
Then sit back and listen to the increasingly demoralized and disjointed flannel. As the nonsense runs down, the game is up.
===============================================================
References
GISS, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.
HadCRUT4, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, from www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt.
Hansen, J., I., Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and G. Russell, 1988, Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93 (D8): 9341-9364.
IPCC, 1990, Climate Change – The IPCC Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia, 410 pp.
IPCC, 1995, Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of WG1 to the Second Assessment Report, J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia.
IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
NCDC, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov
/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.
NOAA, 2013, Monthly mean atmospheric CO2 concentration anomalies, 1958-2013, from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.
RSS, Inc., 2013, Global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies, 1979-2013, remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt.
UAH, 2013, Satellite MSU monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt.
“Cora Lynn says:
January 1, 2014 at 9:58 pm”
What you are forgetting is that the BoM changed the way they measure temperatures using satellites covering areas that were never covered before. Also the BoM introduced 2 new “hot” colours last year which were removed because they were simply wrong. Still, I don’t see how the BoM can calculate a national average based on 112 ground based thermometers. That’s 1 device for every ~68,500 squre kilometers. There is nothing unusual about the current summer temperatures.
Just so you that you are informed, I just found this:
‘at the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta, owner Adriana Jacob said her personal weather gauge showed temperatures had soared to as high as 54C ‘
So before calling people liars, you should do a little checking yourself.
But the point stands, but raising the issue of ice in Antarctica (who would have thought that?) is a meaningless gesture as it means nothing. Then has the temerity to say think before you write. Pot Kettle Black?
OK, folks, here’s something I don’t get in these graphs or some of the earlier ones. If there is a non-negative “anomaly” I’ve always understood it to mean that global warming is happening. Whether it is 0.001 degree or 0.1 degree or 0.9 degree or 2 degrees, it’s still “warming”.
Of course, 3 degrees over 100 years has significantly different effects from 0.4 degree over 100 years; the former being only a little more than mildly annoying while the latter hardly noticeable. From what I recall my profs touting, it would take 4 to 6 degrees to even approach the mildest of the wild horrors of the warmist hysterics.
So, why do all of the graphs seem to show some global warming over the last 17-18 years, when several postings have said that the data show no global warming over that period? I’m not trying to be annoying; I just don’t understand.
Mib8 not sure myself. Someone told me there was a difference between heat and temperature. Some substance can gain heat and not increase temperature. Something called latent heat. Sounds weird but I suppose it can happen.
“The IPCC’s explicit reliance on its own “expert assessment” rather than upon the models’ projections is a significant climbdown.”
IPCC has always worked on this obscure ‘show of hands’ / gut feeling method of assessment. That is subjective and open to criticism. Models have always been one of the elements influencing the expert opinion. It would seem that they are being given a lot less weight than before. That is as it _should be_ , it is not something with which to try to beat them over the head.
His Lordship seems to be too accustomed to the yabooing of the british parliament where you lambaste your opponents for being wrong then lambaste them again, should they be foolish enough to change their minds and agree with you.
The IPCC will have to do something close to a U-turn on the position they have been pedalling. In the interests of the rest of the planet that process should be made as easy and quick as possible. Trying to berate them every time they make the slightest concession to good sense and the facts is not going to help speed up that process.
So this is what the IPCC are going to do to save face? They are going to downgrade their increase in global temperature projections to figures that are statistically insignificant, but they are still going to scare the wits out of anyone gullible enough to listen to them?
Christopher, thank you for sharing this with us, have a very happy 2014!
It has become quite obvious to me as of late that something much better than the current methods of information dissemination is required.
So I am announcing today the project code-named Wattson : sub-core project Colossus.
Scenario year, 2020.
Scenario begins:
It’s the year 2020 and Mr. Forbin has just unboxed his new computer using Intel’s latest 5nm process node technology that went into full production just in the past year. Forbin recalls just 6 years earlier working on the Colossus project with his first generation i7 processor computer. The new computer fits in 169 times the number of transistors in the same space as that first generation version. But there’s more to that equation, as greater use of the 3 dimensional space is now used in present day processors.
Then there’s the hybrid nature of this latest computer with 4 hybrid cores fitting in the space of one CPU class core. The sum results of all these advancements is a computer that executes code several thousand times faster than the computer Colossus Alpha first ran on. A supercomputer in a box, on my desk, thought Forbin, about time.
Then there’s the additional computing power outside of the super-computer core processor, there’s the graphics/physics plug in cards. Now the desktop box is a super-computer on steroids.
Never-the-less one only needs the mainstream computer to run the Wattson : Colossus app:
Having read some article, about temperatures, or some article about some condition of the environment somewhere on Earth, Mr. Forbin interacts with Wattson to display rich visuals of the Earth and the data carefully curated by both skeptic and warmist alike (disclaimer, future scenarios are just projections 🙂 )
It is the hope that students and politicians, policy makers and…trolls will be using Wattson with their 4k monitors, in many cases 3 or more of them, to explore the latest science, with terabytes of data already deployed on the machines to investigate the claims of Pine beetle epidemics and albedo changes.
Scenario Ends:
This project is being announced 1 year ahead of schedule, so take that into consideration. I plan on a 10 part series to be published on WUWT sometime next year, with a final article where I turn things up to 11 and announce the code-named Wattson project : sub-core project Bastardi In A Box, in January 2016.
Note, I wrote this up in a hurry to meet the midnight deadline so I could have this published Jan 1, 2014.
Janice, for the sake of all of us here, don’t post less! And a huge thanks for replaying my quotes in a more prominent and attractive way. Excellent! And your idea of running the quotes like on the sides of buses and the NYT is outstanding. This could probably be done on the cheap. Also, possibly Google Adsense could be used to funnel interested people into a site of selected quotes. References would be good, and of course for the most part I haven’t bothered maintaining those links. Sure, anyone could google a bit of a quote to get to some links that will hopefully lead you to a more original source. A possible problem is that most sites limit the number of links you can include in a comment, or at least without going to moderation. Regardless, if we want to get serious about the quotes, links would be essential, so at some point I’ll try to find the time to find links for key quotes, and at times give the links. I’m thinking I wouldn’t provide the links most of the time though anyway just to keep things quick and simple.
Also, when you talk about the great idea of running some of these quotes in ads and stuff, I think also of this 3 1/2 minute video that exposes Al Gore’s deceptions on CO2, that it would be great to get everyone in the country to see this key key video, somehow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWSwindle_CO2Lag
In my hurry I misnamed the first project, it’s supposed to be “Colossus-in-a-Box”.
Where does this leave the predictions from Prof Sherwood announced in recent days ?
( maybe with a truck load of egg on his face )
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/The-Bet?WT.mc_id=12_13_2013_TheBet
The Gates Notes – 12 THE BIGGER BET
Note to Bill Gates:
First, Happy New Year to you and yours Bill ! I see you have not agreed to take me up on my BIGGER BET.
To reiterate, here it is. If you prefer, we can make it a bet for $1. Your call Bill – it’s not about the money.
Best regards, Allan
************
Hello Bill,
Your article is about THE BET made in 1981 between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon.
May I suggest that it is time for another BIGGER BET.
I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Bill, I bet you $10,000 that the Global Average Lower Troposphere Temperature for December 2019 will be colder than Global Average Lower Troposphere Temperature for the current month of December 2013.
The key to a good bet is that it is independently measurable. The Surface Temperature records are generally unreliable for many reasons. The Satellite Measurements of the Lower Troposphere are much more accurate.
The Satellite Measurements of the Lower Troposphere are independently analyzed by
UAH in Huntsville Alabama http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
and
Remote Sensing Systems in Northern California http://www.remss.com/
I have used UAH in my work so I propose that this be used in our BIGGER BET, but I am open to negotiation.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/november/tlt_update_bar112013.jpg
Since you apparently believe the IPCC and its thousands of professional researchers, I suggest you should provide me with significant ODDS on our BET, but I am prepared to go even-odds if you wish.
So what do you say Bill? Are you in and what are your proposed terms?
Best regards, Allan
P.S.
I don’t want to be unfair Bill, so I will tell you now that I am confident I will win this bet, and I will win it with ease.
Why? Because my predictive record is much better than that of the IPCC, as noted in my earlier posts.
And in science, I suggest that one’s predictive track is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence.
Martine Atherton of Brisbane promises a thorough debunking. I’ll be sure to pass it along here when she gets around to it.
The latest:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Worst-case-climate-scenario-looking-more-likely/tabid/1160/articleID/327000/Default.aspx,
So sorry if that did not come through it was on NZ3 news Channel just a few minutes ago ( as reported in the …. you guessed it…. the GUa …. loud laughter prevents me from going further.
Well done, Christopher, Lord Monckton!!! So pleased you continue to sound the alarm with solid facts about these snake oil salesmen and their ‘scientific’ lackeys. How anyone can allow themselves to spout such utter nonsense, for such shallow objectives, is beyond my ken.
The problem here, of course, is that no one, not even one climate cognoscenti, provides even a single nod that, as of today, the Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old…..
That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). Only one interglacial (that would be MIS-11) since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle. If the Holocene is supposed to last longer than about half a precession cycle (which it has by a few centuries now) doesn’t this at least deserve an honorable mention?
Not in any UN-IPCC Assessment Report.
If the Holocene (MIS-1) is going to last longer than about half a precession cycle, like MIS-11 did without anthropogenic GHG emissions, then we need something better than
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818102001868 (paywalled)
as considered by Lisiecki and Raymo 2005 http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf
Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6h for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6h for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398{418 ka as from 250{650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be arti cially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this e ectively precludes a \double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human in infuence.”
and illuminated by:
Boettger et al 2009 (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618209001475 (paywalled)
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
The Holocene (MIS-1) will “go-long”, like MIS-11 did, or it won’t. If it doesn’t, how do you propose to recognize whatever UN-IPCC, Gorical etc. from the “The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages.”?
MIS-5e, the Eemian, went down into the Wisconsin glacial after at least 2 strong thermal pulses right at its very end! It doesn’t really matter when the Holocene ends, now, or however many half or full precession cycles that may be. The Eemian went thermally ballistic, not once, but twice,during its last thousand years or so.
I either need to see a basic average sea level rise between +6 to +45M amsl during the end Holocene ( http://business.uow.edu.au/sydney-bschool/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf or greater than +52m amsl http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf before ANY prognostication can be considered anomalous.
Capiche?
P.S. Anthropogenic warmIstas: you need to UP your game. To even be considered anomalous you need to be, at the very least, twice background……. Got it?
P.P.S. Background. The single largest question that simply MUST be answered is just what is climate background at a greater than half a precession-old extreme interglacial?
P.P.P.S. It really is just that simple. It might be at this portal that we enter the politics of climate change…….as pre-next glacial as that might seem to some…………
Billyoulots has successfully hijacked the thread. Bill seems to want to talk about something in Australia that has happened before that has no significance globally (if at all).
The IPCC changed its report after the Big Headline news releases, its not as bad as they thought after all. Now this has significance because of the lies and deceit of the IPCC.
(BTW Bill I will only respond to you if you if you want to tell us your thoughts on the IPCC prediction changes…..)
I feel like passing on this comment by Gary Praxis:
And my reply:
Then:
And:
… for your consideration, information, or bemusement.
It is worth noting that the rise in temperatures has never been considered catastrophic or even problematic.
It is the rate of rise in temperatures that was potentially disastrous.
So when does the expected change become so slow that we can adapt easily?
Probably when the effects of warming are slower than the natural wear-and-tear on infrastructure; we will adapt at no extra cost then.
Have we hit that point?
Billmelater says
‘at the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta, owner Adriana Jacob said her personal weather gauge showed temperatures had soared to as high as 54C ‘’
When did Adriana say that? What date was she referring to?
Cora Lynn says:
January 1, 2014 at 9:58 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So far they are only projections.
If we have no data from thermometers, in areas where there are none, or none in regular use, with which to compare- how can we say these temperatures are unprecedented?
Did Dear leader of the ship of fools get his weather forecast from BOM?
Was he also promised record heat?
Heap hot,hot ,hot…Big warm, plenty good weather…
Might explain the Polar Star’s request for a weather forecast from the private sector.
FYI, for those long anchor links breaking its container div use – word-wrap: break-word
This is the part thart most concerns me. We plebs have little to no access to the elite folk who actually run our society, and so have little chance of changing anything.
But I wonder if Christopher Monckton of Brenchley still has personal connnections with those in power, particularly in the old-school wing of the Conservative party in the UK.
Christopher, I hope you do apply whatever private pressure you can to correct much of the misinformation being fed to our government from the IPCC and it’s clones.
Again models? Using models in state of real time adjusted data?
I wonder how much the data must be adjusted to get the IPCC lower predictions.
When I see the figures like nr 9 I get a strange feeling of somehow someone is still missing something. We have models, HadCRUT4 and then comes RSS.
I didn’t at first know what I was missing but then I remember an picture of the route the RSS satellites travel. Back in time when I look t at the picture for me it was nice but no more then that. Now I cant find it any more but it look t like the planet whit an satellite covering it showing yellow. And two parts not covert being gray. And guess what? Yes the not covert areas where the poles. So even RSS is not showing all of the planet and letting out important cool data. So the temperature in real time is still lower.
Then there was the news (no lost that one to) that there would be a new satellite going to masseur data. And that this satellite has an build in correction up to mead global warming stander ts. So if true even RSS is off whit the data to the warm site.
To make figure 9 complete you should put in 1 more set.
Namely the RAW data
Only than you cane see what is happening.
I promised I’d post Martine Atherton’s thorough debunking. To recap, two hours ago she promised this:
And a few moments ago, she delivered this:
I made a point of saying that I’d post her follow-up here because I imagined it would be lame. She did not disappoint!
Janice Moore says: @ur momisugly January 1, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Say, Eric Simpson, just thought of an idea. If you could supply cites for each of those quotes…
Janice, I have these:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is my favorite:
“It’s simply not possible, Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons — coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. … The world consumes 200 million barrels of oil equivalent in hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias.”
Bryce used to be a left-liberal, but then: “I educated myself about math and physics. I’m a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics. The problem is very simple, It’s not political will. It’s simple physics. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. There’s no conspiracy here of big oil or big auto. It’s a conspiracy of physics.” ~ Robert Bryce, author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy. link
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
SEE: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-“double-ethical-bind”-of-climate-change-communication/ and that goes to http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
A collection is here: http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/2013/12/30/quote-isnt-hope-planet-industrialized-civilizations-collapse-maurice-strong/
Another collection is here: http://green-agenda.com/neweconomy.html
And a third collection here: http://www.agenda21course.com/what-they-think-of-humans-in-their-own-words/?print=1
The problem is many of these are from the 1970’s, from speeches and such and do not have direct links such as:
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” ~ – Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit