The New ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming – a shocking admission by "Team Climate"

From the “well maybe there was a hiatus after all” walkback department. Even Mann is on board with this paper.

By MICHAEL BASTASCH AND DR. RYAN MAUE

A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

The paper caught some prominent critics of global climate models by surprise. Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. tweeted “WOW!” after he read the abstract, which concedes “model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed” for most of the early 21st Century.

It’s more than a little shocking.

Santer recently co-authored a separate paper that purported to debunk statements EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made that global warming had “leveled off.” But Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”

Moreover, climate scientists mocked Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for talking about the global warming “hiatus” during a 2015 congressional hearing. Instead, activist scientists worked hard to airbrush the global warming slowdown from data records and advance media claim that it was a “myth.”

Santer and Carl Mears, who operate the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature dataset, authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict.

They argued “examining one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness” when evaluating global warming.

“Don’t cherry-pick; look at all the evidence, not just the carefully selected evidence that supports a particular point of view,” Santers and Mears concluded.

Cruz’s hearing, of course, was the same year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “pause-busting” study. The study by lead author Tom Karl purported to eliminate the “hiatus” from the global surface temperature record by adjusting ocean data upwards to correct for “biases” in the data.

Democrats and environmentalists praised Karl’s work, which came out before the Obama administration unveiled its carbon dioxide regulations for power plants. Karl’s study also came out months before U.N. delegates hashed out the Paris agreement on climate change.

Karl’s study was “verified” in 2016 in a paper led by University of California-Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, but even then there were lingering doubts among climate scientists.

Then, in early 2016, mainstream scientists admitted the climate model trends did not match observations — a coup for scientists like Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger who have been pointing out flaws in model predictions for years.

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.

Now, he and Santer seem to be on the same page — the global warming “hiatus” is real and the models didn’t see it coming.

Santer’s paper argues the “hiatus” or “slowdown” in warming “has provided the scientific community with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding” of the climate system and how to model it.

What’s interesting, though, is Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”

In other words, the “uncertainty monster” is still a problem.

Reprinted via CC license from the Daily Caller News Foundation


The paper:

Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins,

Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou

Abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

Ryan Maue this morning on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/877173782858924033

0 0 vote
Article Rating
316 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kokoda - the most deplorable
June 20, 2017 8:40 am

“..Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”
Modeled warming rates are a ‘school of thought’ and reflect a desired political outcome.
Observed warming rates reflect reality of known science.

Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
June 20, 2017 1:51 pm

Is it possible that hyperventilating snowflakes sequestered enough co2 to make up the difference?

RockyRoad
Reply to  Richard Pettit
June 20, 2017 9:21 pm

I believe they’re “late to the party” even when they host the party. That’s why they have such bad manners.

Mark Fife
Reply to  Richard Pettit
June 22, 2017 6:02 am

Hyperventilating actually causes you to exhale more co2 and sequester more oxygen. Enough to affect a shift in the body’s PH balance. Initially this makes you feel like you are not getting enough air so the natural reflex is to breath faster. Kind of a vicious cycle, especially for people prone to panic attacks.
Armed with this knowledge we now know just how damaging marching and protesting can be to the environment. If these moralistic little snowflakes really cared about saving the planet they would stay home in enclosed, dark spaces, avoid exerting themselves, and whisper quietly. And above all remain calm!

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
June 20, 2017 4:21 pm

It is so hard to reconcile the hypothalamus with the frontal lobes when your limbic system holds sway over rational thought!

Javert Chip
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 20, 2017 9:29 pm

That’s what I always say in situations like this….

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 20, 2017 10:59 pm

That is why Marxism and “progressivism” have so much appeal. They are basically primal and counter-evolutionary. Individual liberty of property and thought is a fairly recent development of human evolution.

J.H.
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 21, 2017 9:55 am

…. It’t got more to do with the Wallet nerve than anything else….. 😉

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
June 20, 2017 9:13 pm

Observed warming rate includes several components including natural variation, greenhouse effect component, non-greenhouse component. Also it is a biased estimate based on the distribution of met network both on the land and in the water with time and space — to overcome this groups made adjustments that vary with group to group.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 21, 2017 1:16 am

I think Dr Curry’s observation that two version of the same dataset had differing values for the same year in the past, shows the adjustments are incorrect. I would expect that simply adding a few months of additional data ( extending the time series) should not change existing values in the time series dataset.
Can you imaging this in any other field? Say, adding this months closing stock prices to the historical series changing the price observed 30 years ago? It is ludicrous.

James
Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
June 21, 2017 9:25 am

The paper sounds like the warmists trying to signal they are willing to work with the Trump Admin if they can keep their government research grants.

Rowland P (UK)
Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
June 21, 2017 2:15 pm

Benjamin Santer is one of the main culprits to instigate the global warming scam:
As lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, he took wording agreed to by fellow chapter authors and modified it considerably. For example, the group wrote,
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
Under Santer it became
1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
2. “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
This is from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/24/old-tactics-revived-as-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-deception-fails-an-open-letter-to-an-open-letter/

Joe - the non climate scientist
June 20, 2017 8:41 am

I like Mann’s previous explanation –
The pause was an artifact of the AMO/PDO – but the enhanced warming during the warming phase of the AMO/PDO had nothing to do with the accelarated rate of warming during the 1980/90’s

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
June 20, 2017 8:47 am

In other words – it shows the dishonesty of the climate scientists – ignoring the ocean cycles that have been prominent in the temp records since the 1850’s
Or is shows the ignorance of the climate scientists – not knowing about the ocean cycles even though they have been prominent in the temp records since the 1850’s
Or it shows both the ignorance and the dishonesty

john harmsworth
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
June 20, 2017 10:18 am

I think you forgot greed! Then there’s the other deadly sins.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
June 20, 2017 5:10 pm

Ingnorance, dishonesty, and greed, Yes, these are our primary weapons against heresy. And stupidity. Ingnorance, dishonesty, greed, and stupidity… Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
June 21, 2017 2:45 am

The three attributes of climate science: Ingnorance, dishonesty, greed and calumny … FOUR attributes of climate science.
NO ONE expects the climate inquisition!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
June 21, 2017 3:57 pm

I seem to have heard recently that “the love of theory is the root of evil” somewhere on you-tube…

Richard M
June 20, 2017 8:42 am

While it is good these folks are admitting something that has been obvious for years, they are still in denial that all of the variability could be completely due to ocean cycles.
I think that Fyfe is the key person here. He is probably the one who is showing them the math does not support what they want to believe.

Reply to  Richard M
June 20, 2017 4:50 pm

All the climate variability could be due to measurement errors, inaccurate infilling, improper “adjustments” and leftist ‘thumbs on the scale’.
Even if the measurements were perfect — I actually assume at least +/- 1 degree C. — it’s possible we are observing minor natural climate variations of no significance at all.
People love to extrapolate short term trends into infinity.
People love to make predictions … and hear predictions.
Politicians love to have a boogeyman to scare voters into allowing them to seize more power and tell everyone else how to live.
The ONLY thing that has happened to the climate in the past 150 years is that it has gotten slightly better .. although our green plants would prefer 800 to 1,200 ppm CO2 for optimum growth — so lets all go to the supermarket and open every soda bottle we see to release more CO2 into the air and make our plants very happy.
What a waste of money to study the climate where there is no problem that needs solving … especially those computer gamer nerd who get good money to play climate computer games all day and tell everybody they know they are working to save the planet !

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 21, 2017 8:07 am

Nothing can even approach infinity. the largest known number is just as far away from infinity as 1 is from infinity in other words infinity is infinity larger than all real numbers.

Auto
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 21, 2017 2:46 pm

Richard Greene,
“People love to extrapolate short term trends into infinity.”
This Wednesday morning at about 0900, it was 18C here.
At 1800 it was 28C – so I guess by Friday Noon, it will be about 71C.
Sorry, Friday is not infinity.
In England.
In England?????????
I don’t like to think about Christmas . . . . . . . .
But I absolutely agree with your gut-feeling.
There is certainly a feeling of mis-data [I do not suggest how or why], but let us hope a Damascene light enlightens many – or all – of the True-believers, the cultists . . . . . . .
Auto

Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 8:52 am

Wow! Could there be integrity still in CAGW climate scientists?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 9:07 am

No. Desperate CYA maneuvers to preserve possible future grant opportunities, yes.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 20, 2017 2:38 pm

D.J. Hawkins writes: “No. Desperate CYA maneuvers to preserve possible future grant opportunities, yes.”
I think you have that right. The cAGW community, who have always been a politically motivated sub-population of real climate scientists, are doing some backpedaling (fierce backpedaling I think). That cohort sold their integrity for cash on the barrel years ago. We’re just seeing them do it again.

jclarke341
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 20, 2017 9:09 pm

These ‘scientists’ may not have a clue about future climate, but the sure know how to monitor the wind out of Washington. When the wind shifts, you have to adjust your heading if you want to get anywhere.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 9:24 am

Short answer, “No”
Anyone still holding to the notion of “catastrophic” warming on decadal scale (whether human or natural) is scientifically illiterate and attempting to motivate political momentum by fear.
History shows convincingly that earth’s climate is conservative (full of known physical processes like evaporation, condensation, cloud cover, precipitation, convective circulation, etc that restore normalcy), rather than prone to “tipping points” or “runaway” change.
That’s how it’s been for billions of years and that’s how it’s going to remain

Steve
Reply to  GeologyJim
June 20, 2017 12:04 pm

Homeostasis is a wonderful thing.

Keith J
Reply to  GeologyJim
June 20, 2017 4:14 pm

Climate restores itself after world scale calamity. Significant impactors like the K-T event excluded naturally. But the Year Without a Summer was only an 18 month major effect. Tunguska didn’t have any real climate effect..it takes more than a few ppm of carbonic anhydride to muss mother nature.

Luther Bl't
Reply to  Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 12:42 pm

No. It is not difficult to make a man understand something if his continuing in his job depends upon understanding it.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Luther Bl't
June 20, 2017 5:12 pm

And vice versa.

Reply to  Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 8:15 pm

No.
But lots of cowardice, and as D.J. Hawkins points out, desperation. From years of false science, rigged research, calumny and grant fraud.
The cracks appear. An excellent reason to review departing rats’ research first.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Tanstafl
June 20, 2017 9:35 pm

Integrity? You mean from the guys who (probably still) want to lock skeptics up for having pointed out the “hiatus”?
Are you nuts?

June 20, 2017 8:56 am

Good, time to stop the crippling green policies and taxes. Figure out how the climate really works, and then let the free market and energy abundance help us to deal with any adverse effects.

Kozlowski
Reply to  The Trumpeting Zone
June 20, 2017 11:15 am

“Figure out how the climate really works, and then let the free market and energy abundance help us to deal with any adverse effects.”
Nailed it!

RayG
Reply to  The Trumpeting Zone
June 20, 2017 12:06 pm

Unfortunately for those of us who live in California, data won’t dissuade the ecoloons, Hollywood glitterati, the MSM, our political class and enough of the general population who have swallowed the Cool Aid. Afterall, we have to save the world, think of our grandchildren, etc.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RayG
June 20, 2017 1:31 pm

Hollywood Glitterati: Those fortunate enough to be born beautiful or handsome, have a pleasant voice, and the ability to memorize the lines of a song or script. They believe that their good fortune also imbues them with special insights on science and politics that lays upon them the burden of sharing their wisdom with their fans, who are less fortunate.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  RayG
June 20, 2017 4:29 pm

Hollywood Glitterati: A momentary glitter in the spotlight before booze, sex, and drugs tarnishes the sparkle.

Javert Chip
Reply to  RayG
June 20, 2017 9:37 pm

Frankly, who cares?
(RayG you have the option to move; I recommend you take it).

Reply to  RayG
June 21, 2017 8:10 am

“Clyde Spencer June 20, 2017 at 1:31 pm”:
They especially believe it if they acted in a movie on the subject.

Reply to  The Trumpeting Zone
June 20, 2017 2:42 pm

TTZ writes: “Good, time to stop the crippling green policies and taxes.”
Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe this will stop taxes. It may cause the “reason” to change, but it’s not going to stop taxes. Just my considered opinion.

Reply to  Bartleby
June 20, 2017 7:19 pm

+1000 and my tax bill …

Reply to  Bartleby
June 26, 2017 5:06 am

It sad the beautiful state of California is populated with leftwing folks. However there are a few nice places to live with better policies., go on a holiday to Cali;)

Reply to  Bartleby
June 26, 2017 5:07 am

ah wrong reply;p of course it won’t in general, it might for this particular scam though.

June 20, 2017 8:56 am

But I was told several years ago that the science was settled! I wish these “top” “scientists” would make up their minds.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 20, 2017 11:56 am

I know what you mean. This settled science is so unsettling.

jaffa68
Reply to  goldminor
June 20, 2017 3:59 pm

The science is still progressing, it’s the answers that are settled.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 20, 2017 12:04 pm

The science is not settled Philip. Please read this 2014 press release and try not to laugh,
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
“While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”
“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming,”
“It made us think that there must be something really weird going in the models in the years after CO2 was added. We wanted to resolve the paradox that climate models show warming via enhanced shortwave radiation, not decreased longwave radiation.”
“Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding”
Throwing out guesses?!?!?!
And, wait there’s more;
“Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2.”
Ooooh, cancelling the longwave-trapping effects of CO2. Sounds interesting.
“Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.”
“So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but it’s the other one that’s directly driving global warming — that’s the surprising thing,”
Meanwhile Isaac Held, senior scientist at NOAA, responds to the paper with,
“While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways”
That play down (“does not change our understanding of the fundamentals”) does not correlate with,
“conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming”,
does it!
“I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,”
” Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”
“The authors demonstrate that the source of the differences lies in the way in which a model represents changes in cloud cover with global warming, another big factor in how well Earth can reflect shortwave solar energy.”
The essence of the paper adds another mechanism in essence to the ‘power’ of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ such that these two then don’t add up to a ‘hill of beans’ due to the hiatus!!
As shown by the data.
Interestingly, Isaac Held levels no direct criticism of statements quoted.
Totally amazing. All as mad as a box of frogs.

Thin Air
Reply to  nuwurld
June 20, 2017 1:26 pm

Here is another article (linked to PNAS article summarized in the MIT newsletter mentioned above by nuwrld), pointing out the limited effects of CO2 for warming, from way back in 2013, and largely ignored.
“On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming”
Alfred Laubereau and Hristo Iglev
Published 8 November 2013 • Copyright EPLA, 2013
EPL (Europhysics Letters), Volume 104, Number 2
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001?utm_source=Trendmd&utm_medium=Ppc

Reply to  nuwurld
June 20, 2017 2:50 pm

nuwurld observes: “Throwing out guesses?!?!?!”
OK. My turn.
CO2 doesn’t freeze the way water does, so it has no limit at the tropopause. It carries heat as it ascends past the trope, making it a more efficient mechanism.
Or, is that just too simple?

Editor
Reply to  nuwurld
June 20, 2017 6:41 pm

The tropopause is the bottom of a temperature inversion that runs through the stratosphere and maintained by UV absorption heating the ozone in the air.
The temperature inversion stops CO2 gas just as well as it stops N2 and O2. There isn’t much water vapor (or ice crystals), though big thunderstorms can inject water into the stratosphere in their central updraft.

Reply to  nuwurld
June 21, 2017 2:46 am

I’m not sure I read that right but it looks as if Held is saying that it could be the models that are causing the global warming. Perhaps someone will give me a grant to study that angle. It’s about the only one that hasn’t been tried yet!

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 20, 2017 1:15 pm

“I wish these “top” “scientists” would make up their minds.”
What they’ve got is “Top Men”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdjf4lMmiiI

Reply to  Bob Cormack
June 20, 2017 10:01 pm

I would rather they find their “minds”.
All too often, they’re real good at finding and using bias, then seeking publicity.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 21, 2017 12:38 pm

Isaac Held is a gentleman. He is the only blog operator who has contacted me through personal email to tell me of a comment disallowed. Further, he was willing to try to communicate and resolve.
However, Isaac Held is invested through the many papers written and an initial assumption which he tried to convey to me.
Isaac Held truly ‘believes’ that the process of diffusion homogenises temperature in a gravity field. We didn’t get much further than that. Maxwell’s distribution due to statistical analysis apparently allows diffusion to normalise gravity. This makes molecular noise the only process known to man that defies gravity. I could not accept this concession.
His belief then requires long wave opacity to produce the continuous instability that causes convection.
Whereas, data says that measured tropospheric profiles by all mechanisms feel gravity.
The MIT ‘clowns’ convey the errors unwittingly. Isaac Held is in no position to attempt to correct the shocking truth of their analysis, which is confirmed by the data.

ferd berple
June 20, 2017 8:59 am

trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
============
they still don’t get it. the future is not an average of what might happen, no matter how large your sample.
consider a simple case. much simpler than climate forecasting. a pair of dice. if you run a computer model, you will find that your result will be somewhere between 2 and 12, with 7 as the average.
so climate science has taken 7 as its prediction for future climate. but this is nonsense, because the actual result can be between 2 and 12. and no one has the necessary math of physics to know which value the future will bring.

DonM
Reply to  ferd berple
June 20, 2017 9:12 am

Climate science models are skewed toward 8 as the average by including the parameter/guess that rolling a number 7 or higher will lead to an increased likelihood of a 7 or higher on the next roll.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  DonM
June 20, 2017 4:39 pm

…when actually, the climate is n number of die, whose average is computed from every die, but some die are tossed more frequently than others. – i.e. chaos

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  DonM
June 20, 2017 6:39 pm

dice

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  DonM
June 21, 2017 8:37 am

No. As a noun for a face-numbered cube, die is singular; dice is plural.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ferd berple
June 20, 2017 9:14 am

ferd berple

so climate science has taken 7 as its prediction for future climate. but this is nonsense, because the actual result can be between 2 and 12. and no one has the necessary math of physics to know which value the future will bring.

It is worse than it, actually.
The climate industrial-academic-bureaucratic class has modeled future temperatures to be between +2 and +6, made forecasts and warnings and prepared thousands of papers on hundreds of topics predicating the harm that will happen as if EVERY future climate will be +10 to +14, ignored the real-world trends that forecast an actual future temperature between -2 and +4, and ignored the 100% guaranteed harm for 100 years that will result in trying to artificially limit CO2 increases to values that WILL NOT CHANGE THE FUTURE TEMPERATURES by any more than 0.05 degrees!

PiperPaul
Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 20, 2017 9:44 am

+97

john harmsworth
Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 20, 2017 10:21 am

Well done, all of you! Pretty much described the whole of AGW pseudo-science there very succinctly!

Tim Hammond
Reply to  ferd berple
June 20, 2017 10:47 am

It’s worse, as the ensemble showed between 2 and 12 and it ended up being 1!

Reply to  ferd berple
June 20, 2017 5:04 pm

Modern climate science has not taken a “7” as it’s prediction of the future !
Maybe some real climate scientists did but not the hotshots at NASA – GISS and NOAA
They threw two dice and came up with a “13” as their prediction of the future!
Runaway global warming that will end all life on earth. — that’s a “13”
Modern climate “science” starts with the “known” prediction of the future and works backwards.
The future climate is known with great certainty.
Past historical temperature data constantly “changes” to support the prediction.
In fact, monthly average temperature should be put in a drawer and ignored for the next 10 to 20 years until the numbers get the proper “adjustments” and settle down.
The life will end prediction never changes, although the date of doom is continuously pushed forward .
There is no time to debate the prediction because scientists are working 25 hours a day to save the Earth .. and besides 97% of scientists agree and the other 3% were hard of hearing and didn’t hear the question.
Modern climate “science” is like a comedy movie … except it’s real

June 20, 2017 8:59 am

Does this mean that we need another round of temperature adjustments? Soon, we will just be comping out of an ice age in the ’60s or ’70s…
After all, a basic tenet of science is to bend reality to fit your model…

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 9:02 am

So the scientifically responsible and correct moral choice would be to teach students that the climate is not, as per their previous assertions, behaving in step with the predictions of dangerous and unprecedented warming then, wouldn’t it?
Any chance of that happening? No, I thought not. But never mind, there isn’t any possibility of the BBC, Guardian or New York Times telling their audiences about how a major part of the alarmist fantasy just fell apart.

BCBill
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 9:42 am

Add CBC to that list. CBC seems to have an official policy to never question the CAGW official narrative. Anna Maria “Spumante’s” (all the bubbles, none of the substance) self delusion is remarkably on display for the whole country to listen to in painful embarrassment.

tetris
Reply to  BCBill
June 20, 2017 11:15 am

Yep. Did you catch the CBC Vancouver’s latest fairy tale [podcast] Vancouver 2050, complete with 50% more extreme hot weather days by 2030, a ban on internal combustion engins and hydrogen fuelled driverless cars zooming about town….
Taxpayer funded delusion – and eco charlatan Suzuki @ 80 still on staff as a science consultant.

Catcracking
Reply to  BCBill
June 20, 2017 12:03 pm

In this case driverless cars means they are stationary since Hydrogen is not likely to become a transportation fuel of the future w/o using natural gas to produce the hydrogen as is the current situation. I have worked on many Hydrogen plants and they all use natural gas as a feedstock and dump the carbon into the air as CO 2. The alternative of making H2 from water needs a lot of energy and not likely viable on a large scale either.
Has anyone seen this from tallbloke on electric cars?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/study-tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-driving-on-petrol/amp/

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Toronto
Reply to  BCBill
June 20, 2017 1:36 pm

The CBC finds the most ill-informed, obtuse argument-presenting interviewees imaginable. Some are beyond even my fertile imagination. Ms Tremonte’s slavish kow-towing is really hard on the logic centres. The howlers that come from the WWF rep are legion. Every bit of claptrap rattling out of the alarming grab-bag is accepted at face value at the CBC. Even being told by an NGO head that they were being paid $17,000 a week in American money to disrupt the BC pipelines didn’t faze her. Foreign bribery? Good for business!
I cannot imagine the news of the pause will reach them.

BCBill
Reply to  BCBill
June 20, 2017 4:04 pm

@Tetris
Good old “A million horrible ways to die Suzuki”. In a recent (CBC) interview he took great pains to explain how his (self appointed?) status as an elder gave him license to be an even ruder jerk than he has been all his life. It seems that he understands the concept of being an elder even less than he understands global warming (which is to say virtually not at all).

Sommer
Reply to  BCBill
June 20, 2017 6:31 pm

And then we have Catherine McKenna, JustinTrudeau’s Environment Minister, tweeting to Canadian families that ditching plastic bags will “reverse climate change”.
Catherine McKenna‏Verified account
@cathmckenna
Follow
More
Three #StepsToReverseClimateChange for families:
1. Use public transit
2. Use energy efficient appliances
3. Ditch plastic bags!!

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 9:49 am

MCoEA
I’m no scientist, certainly not a politician, nor even a journalist, just a concerned member of the public, but long enough in tooth to see what’s going on here.
Over several months there appears to be more than just the usual dribble of sceptical science published globally. In fact it’s becoming, if not yet a tsunami, at least a little wave.
We sceptics have known about the hiatus for a number of years, and also the incredible disparity between observed temperatures and forecasts.
But Trump has changed the political landscape and when the IPCC are forced to revise their ludicrous predictions down, again, they will be, at best, ridiculed. And that is likely to coincide neatly with Trumps run for a second term and, possibly, a UK general election.
There will be innumerable ambitious politicians, keen to make a name for themselves by saving both the UK and the US tens of billions of £/$’s by condemning fake climate science, the demolition of which, will be well under way by then.
Someone caught their jumper on the barbed wire, and as fast as they run, the jumper is unravelling.
Happy days!

Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 10:38 am

Happy thought but I’m not so sure that can even happen. All of the once august scientific institutions have backed this to the hilt. Each and every last one of them. All of the once prestigious journals have done the same. All of the erstwhile great universities. All of the Western politicians have nailed their colours to the CAGW mast. Virtually the entirety of the mainstream media – with one or two notable honest individual ‘rogue’ journalist exceptions such as Dellingpole and Booker. And this is why people who have either never looked in any kind of depth or are unable to do so simply cannot believe that the whole thing could possibly be a giant steaming wobbling pile of bovid ordure from start to finish.
The politicians being the slimy gits they are of course may well attempt to slither out of it – and scapegoat Obama for example – but surely the rest of those mentioned have no way back out of this whatsoever. All they can realistically do is to ever so slowly shift the funding emphasis and dial back on the discussion of it and hope that eventually it fades out of sight like the Cheshire cat without anyone noticing too much.

Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 12:25 pm

cephus0
“All they can realistically do is to ever so slowly shift the funding emphasis and dial back on the discussion of it and hope that eventually it fades out of sight like the Cheshire cat without anyone noticing too much.”
Eloquently put sir/madam.
Because that is precisely what they are starting to do in my opinion.
There will be a lot of spluttering and excuses, but of course they will never have actually believed in the preposterous concept of CO2 generated AGW, they were merely pointing out that the world is warming naturally.
If you look closely enough, politicians, and even scientists have little get out clauses in historic statements they will invoke when the shit hits the fan.
I mean, Tony Blair wriggled out of Iraq and became middle east peace ambassador to the UN, or some other unlikely title.
If he can manage that astonishing sleight of hand, others wriggling out of AGW support will be a doddle.
Pity is, that we all let Blair and Bush off the hook.

Peter Sable
Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 12:57 pm

The general term for this social effect is ‘The Overton Window’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Reply to  Peter Sable
June 20, 2017 1:52 pm

Peter,
I am Sid the Sloth. A genius. Thank you. 🙂

Roger Knights
Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 1:21 pm

“Someone caught their jumper on the barbed wire, and as fast as they run, the jumper is unravelling.”
Here’s my version: Auntie Beeb got her tilt caught in a wronger.

Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 2:05 pm

HOT SCOT:
I’m in the US, if things are different in Scotland what I say could be wrong for that country:
Your predictions are ridiculously over-optimistic.
But please stay optimistic.
I wish everything you said will come true.
I’m a realist who understands the politics behind the boogeyman — currently runaway warming, but could be something else in a few years if the weather got unusually cold: Environmentalists will ALWAYS have a boogeyman and the “cure” will ALWAYS be a more powerful government
Trump changed nothing.
He and Pruitt are like scared children afraid to even suggest CO2 may not control the climate.
Trump gives the impression of knowing nothing beyond what was necessary to be a good salesman — he gives the impression he has never read a book on government, economics, climate change or practically any other subject outside of sales.
Trump and Pruitt are two losers, in my opinion.
Trump has no chance of a second term — he grossly over-promised what could be delivered in his first term.
He may not even last the first term.
You completely misunderstand liberals / leftists.
They NEVER change their minds on anything EXCEPT to move further left on a subject..
And there may never be global cooling again since leftist bureaucrats control the data collection and compilation of the average temperature — they will adjust and infill to keep the warming trend going JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST 17 YEARS … allowing the gap between surface temperatures to grow versus satellite data … and no one in the press ever questions that gap outside of the Wall Street Journal (once) or maybe Fox News.
Our planet has been warming since the last peak glaciation 20,000 years ago — no one knows when the warming will end — it’s possible the warming ended in the early 2000s.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 4:50 pm

I think the trends will give birth to more heat that’s been hiding in the oceans.

Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 5:07 pm

Richard Greene
Richard,
well, perhaps like concencus ‘climate scientists’ I’m wrong. And if they were right, none of us would be on this august forum.
Let me dispel a belief you perhaps labour under. Despite my non de plume on this site, and whilst a Jock, I have lived in the depths of the Conservative heartlands of South East England, indeed, the bellwether site of Dartford. When Dartford falls to the left, the rest of the country follows, and it’s not yet fallen, despite the recent political wobble.
“I’m a realist who understands the politics behind the boogeyman”
Are you suggesting I’m not?
“Trump changed nothing.”
So far, in environmental terms, Trump had done at least what he promised, he and Pruitt have stuffed the EPA and told the rest of the world to stick the Paris agreement up their derriere.
If there is one thing on the planet sure to turn the heads of politically minded voters, it’s a political leader who actually does what he/she states in their manifesto. To do it within months of an election is truly unprecedented. Trump has garnered some support, I suspect, if for nothing else, being at least true to his word.
Look at Trump objectively and one thing springs to mind. He’s a fairly odious character, but he does what he promises. In the UK we too have had some questionable leaders, including our current one, few, if any have done what they say they will do, and many have been re-elected.
America is a business, a huge one, but no less a global business than China, India, Russia and, of course, our own Europe, as dysfunctional as it is.
And if, in 4 years time, Donald can present a piece of paper stating that he slashed unemployment and increased US GDP because he kicked the Paris Accord into touch, he will win by a massive landslide. The value of that single announcement cannot be understated. It was a piece of political genius because he can’t lose.
As you and I know, temperatures aren’t going to suddenly shoot up to the IPCC’s apocalyptic maximum, so whatever happens, Trump wins.
And unlike most politicians who delay the inevitable in order to make themselves popular directly following an election, the point at which popularity least matters, Trump is dealing with all the shitty stuff early so it will be but a distant memory when he waves that piece of paper in front of the cameras.
The guy may be portrayed as an oaf, but unlike the Clinton’s who had their child problems, Trump has a seemingly stable family who are all pitching in to help. Perhaps not ideal from the nepotist conspiracy theorists point of view, but what American family wouldn’t love to have the people they trust most working with them?
Within days of election he’s rattled some international cages and gauged the reaction. he now knows the lie of their land better than probably any other president in history. And whilst everyone bitches about him, the world has been screaming for years about different ways of doing politics. Trump comes along, delivers just that, and now they are screaming about his methods.
And the clincher is, Trump has stuck two fingers up at the global opposition (or an American middle digit) and said quite clearly, America’s willing and able to take you all on. The UK has said the same to Europe, and I truly hope the US and the UK will work together again, as we have more in common that the rest of the world put together.
To do that, we will have to also quietly sideline the Paris accord and the rest of the world, and Europe, will watch as the climate change edifice crumbles, quietly and gracefully. The ones left standing will be the marginalised lefty greens, and they will be back where they belong, in their CND camps on the shores of the Holy Loch campaigning against nuclear submarines.
Will Trump be re-elected? Who knows. But at his final re-election speech he only needs to say “At least I tried to deliver better politics” and he should be, assuming nothing really big goes tits up in the interim. And Kennedy was the last victim of that kind of monumental disaster.
I didn’t like the guy from day one. The best of a bad bunch. But at least he’s delivered on some of his manifesto promises, and that goes a long way with voters. It’s also made me sit up and think.

Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2017 5:10 pm

noaaprogrammer
Don’t take the piss. The beginning of the end is nigh.

A C Osborn
Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2017 4:27 am

Hotscot, I lived in Belvedere, just down the road from where you are now and took my driving test in Dartford back in the 60s.
I have been living in Wales for the past 48 years though.

Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2017 7:34 am

A C Osborn
Hey! bit of a coincidence really, I was a driving instructor around South London, including Belvedere, several years ago.
But you don’t want to come back here for a visit, Belvedere is much the same I suspect but Dartford is the pits. Lowfield Street, the main drag into Dartford has been boarded up for nearly 15 years. Tesco bought most of it up and after 12 years of prevarication, finally pulled out of building a supermarket, not that Dartford council helped.
Now we’re back to hoardings while we wait for new flats to be built, and the place still looks like a slum. The town centre is charity shop heaven, but then with Bluewater, and Thurrock Lakeside on our doorstep, what do we expect really. But then, the council, again, have done little to encourage traders to move in.
I’m retiring in 4 years, probably back to Scotland, assuming the mad SNP are gone, or at least had their wings clipped more than they were at the GE. If not, it might have to be Wales in which case, we can go for a pint and watch some Rugby together. :):)

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 2:57 pm

Moderately Cross writes: “Any chance of that happening? No, I thought not.”
No chance at all. I can say, with a great deal of certainty, that any dissenting opinion along the lines of this publication will very quickly get you banned from any Conde Nasty site. Toot suite.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 22, 2017 12:27 am

MC of EA, want to bet the MSM won’t be all over investigations of the coming scandals related to promulgating and promoting CAGW? The distortions (and contortions) to paper over model failures and predictions of more extreme weather will get into questions of “when did you know….” lies.

Ben Dover
June 20, 2017 9:03 am

Could there be a government mantra to “Get with the program”? These “scientists” still want jobs until they retire.

Old England
Reply to  Ben Dover
June 20, 2017 12:14 pm

Excellent question. I hope there is…..

Javert Chip
Reply to  Ben Dover
June 20, 2017 9:49 pm

Uhhh…apparently they could also move to France

A C Osborn
Reply to  Javert Chip
June 21, 2017 4:28 am

They are very welcome to them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Javert Chip
June 22, 2017 12:30 am

France doesn’t have the money.

Rasa
June 20, 2017 9:03 am

Billions of dollars spent and we are still trying to decide if the temperature has increased.
Not surprising people are skeptics of the warming hype?

Catcracking
Reply to  Rasa
June 20, 2017 12:07 pm

I think the number is trillions if one includes the failure to find alternatives to fossil fuels and the mandatory requirements put on industry.

Reply to  Rasa
June 20, 2017 7:32 pm

Rasa, it isn’t like the thermometer has been around that long. You have to give people time for this sort of thing. They need to adjust their portfolios, maybe even their underwear. It may take generations…
🙂

June 20, 2017 9:07 am

An encouraging development, One does wonder is there some sort of catch? Did the Russians do it or maybe those Pesky Qataris? http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/re-framing-war-on-carbon-carbon-surplus.html . I do wonder why Dr Glassmans Rocket Science Journal does not get quoted more often It really is all there including Henrys Law from this In 2007. Glassman is the Author of the Glassman Algorithm a modelling pioneer in the FFT One can only marvel at the hubris of the Scientific Political Establishment on these questions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223142711_A_Simple_Derivation_of_Glassman_General-N_Fast_Fourier-Transform

Reply to  rogerglewis
June 20, 2017 9:11 am

Sorry here is Glassman’s CO2 Why Me paper, pay close attention to what he says about CO2 flux using the Wanninkhof gas exchange rate model in the beautiful Takahashi diagram. AR4, Figure 7.8, p. 523. Particularly Out Gassing of Cos2 in the Equatorial Pacific. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html . On The Carbon Cycle this from last Autumn ( Fall to the US folk) http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2355199/component/escidoc:2355196/BGC2542D.pdf?utm_content=buffer408e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Bloke down the pub
June 20, 2017 9:10 am

As long as they have control of the climate record, these blips will keep on occurring as they play catch up with mother nature.

BallBounces
June 20, 2017 9:14 am

To summarize: it’s not a pause until they say it’s a pause.

J Mac
June 20, 2017 9:17 am

RE: “Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.””
Let’s welcome this small acceptance of verified reality by the ‘mystic modelers’! While this admission was surely ‘unsettling’ for the purveyors of sedimentary climate science, it may reflect a first, toddling return step towards the scientific method.

Dave Fair
Reply to  J Mac
June 22, 2017 12:37 am

Please note everyone: The difference between models and observations is now a given. The climate science “sexual intellectuals” (f….ing idiots) are simply arguing among themselves about causes. They will screw up that work too.

Latitude
June 20, 2017 9:19 am

climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere…..
How much of that is because they are tuned to past temps that have been adjusted/fudged/jiggered to show a faster rate of warming than is real?

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 9:20 am

…and speaking of hiatus….you’re supposed to be on one right now mister!
” Anthony Watts / 50 mins ago June 20, 2017 “

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 9:39 am

Yeah, Anthony – you’re supposed to be on vacation. So vacate already! ;-p

drednicolson
Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 10:42 am

Still waiting on his plane tickets, probably. :]

Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 10:46 am

This one comes as a nice relaxing G&T with ice and a slice to kick off the hols.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 10:50 am

My understanding is that the models cannot either hind cast or forecast from first principles, and thus have to be endlessly “fudged” to be able to do either.
That’s fine (and not unusual in science), if people admit it. But they don;t, and continue to claim that the models work well, when the obviously do not.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Tim Hammond
June 20, 2017 4:56 pm

While true do
code patch upon
code patch upon
code patch upon

it’s goto’s all the way down.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
June 20, 2017 7:58 pm

Turtles.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Tim Hammond
June 21, 2017 8:56 am

In programming, the goto statement was an unconditional transfer of control statement used in the early days of programming, which often lead to programs whose flow of control was hard to read, (called spaghetti code). Using goto’s in a program is highly discouraged, and it has been proven that goto’s do not add any power to a programming language that can’t be handled by the more structured if- and if-else-statements.

Raven
Reply to  Tim Hammond
June 21, 2017 9:27 pm

My understanding is that the models cannot either hind cast or forecast from first principles, and thus have to be endlessly “fudged” to be able to do either.

I’m no scientist but if the models aren’t derived directly and solely from first principals, then the notion of “it’s basic physics” is wrong.
If the models were indeed “basic physics”, then they could be validated and would produce predictions instead of projections.

Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 5:21 pm

Don’t the climate models assume the “positive feedback water vapor tripler”
— tripling any conservative forecast of CO2 acting alone,
leading to forecasted warming consistently far from reality ?
Do the modelers / models care about the past temperatures?
If they did, there’s no past evidence in any proxies or real time measurements
of any positive feedback, much less positive feedback tripling the warming from CO2 alone?
I think they are completely ignoring climate history.
And they’re not real models — models have to be based on a well understood process.
Climate change is far from well understood.
The so-called GCM models are fakes designed to present personal opinions with complex math which appears to be real science to laymen.
The results of the models (predictions / projections / simulations / farm animal excrement) is exactly what the modelers believed all along — they’re wild guesses of the future climate are not real science and those are not real models !

ferdberple
June 20, 2017 9:19 am

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
===============
in other words, by adjusting the past, we have been feeding lies to the models and they have given us a crazy answer as a result. Big surprise. 2001 Space Odyssey showed what happens when you lie to computers.
Their answer? We need to adjust the post 2000 forcing data to match the pre 2000 adjustments. More aerosols. We need more aerosols post 2000. That’s the ticket.

Latitude
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 9:22 am

exactly ferd……when they tuned…hindcast…to a faster rate of warming…..they are going to produce a faster rate of warming

Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 1:21 pm

Hindcast: When one snags the arse* of ones favourite fishing Breeks** with a Bloody Butcher*** one is using to fish for an elusive Burn**** trout.
*The sitting part of one’s Breeks.
**Trousers, or in American parlance, Pants (Pants are considered underwear in the UK, home of the English language).
***A traditional fly fishing ‘fly’, a favourite amongst Burn fishermen.
****A small stream in Scotland, the plural of which, is the surname of the worlds greatest poet, Rabbie, the author of the worlds greatest poem, Tam o’ Shanter.
“The poem describes the habits of Tam, a farmer who often gets drunk with his friends in a public house in the Scottish town of Ayr, and his thoughtless ways, specifically towards his wife, who is waiting at home for him, angry.
At the conclusion of one such late-night revel after a market day, Tam rides home on his horse Meg while a storm is brewing. On the way he sees the local haunted church lit up, with witches and warlocks dancing and the devil playing the bagpipes.
He is drunk, still upon his horse, just on the edge of the light, watching, amazed to see the place bedecked with many gruesome things such as gibbet irons and knives that had been used to commit murders and other macabre artefacts.
The witches danced as the music intensifies to a crescendo and, upon seeing one particularly wanton witch in a short dress, in his excitement, he loses his reason and shouts,”Weel done, Cutty Sark!” (Cutty Sark – Short Shirt).
Immediately, the lights go out, music and dancing stops, and the creatures race after Tam, with the witches leading.
Tam spurs Meg to turn and flee, driving his horse towards the River Doon, running water the creatures dare not cross.
The witch he so admired comes so close to catching Tam and Meg that they pull Meg’s tail off just as she crosses the Brig o’ Doon (Bridge over the river Doon).
Tam and Meg escaped.
We sceptics can be considered as lucky. We will escape the clutches of the witch that is AGW, but there will be a price to pay.
Of course the fastest tea clipper of her day “Cutty Sark” is on display to this day in Greenwich, London. And the witch wearing the ‘Cutty Sark’ is her bowsprit.
Rabbie Burns’ cottage is now a small museum in Ayr, and I mean small. And whilst we often bemoan our own lot, it gives an insight into real deprivation from which intellectual genius emerged. A very sobering place.
And one can, to this day, walk past the cemetery, and over the bridge crossing the river Doon where Rabbie’s poem was conceived.
And Ayrshire is the site of the Electric Brae. An uphill road where, when one lets the handbrake off in a manual (or stickshift) car, it rolls uphill.
Some say it’s an optical illusion. Personally, I think it’s witchcraft on modern day spirit levels that indicate the road actually heads downhill.
The Cutty Sarks influence is further reaching than anyone ever believed.
We sceptics know the truth.
Our AGW counterparts are still farting about with spirit levels. 🙂

drednicolson
Reply to  Latitude
June 20, 2017 7:20 pm

I’d surmise there’s a really big lodestone somewhere under the Electric Brae, in just the right position to magnetically attract a free-rolling car up the hill. :]

Gabro
Reply to  Latitude
June 21, 2017 12:39 pm

HotScot,
The original home of the English language was from the coasts of Frisia and Saxony on the North Sea, through Schleswig-Holstein (Anglia) to Jutland. Immigrants from those parts took it with them to Britain from the 5th century AD. There it underwent evolution from exposure to Celtic and Romance languages to become the speech which immigrants from Britain carried to the New World more than 1000 years later.
American English is closer to the language of 17th century England than is modern British English, or at least than Received Pronunciation. Shakespeare did not drop final Rs (ie, was “rhotic”), as in RP (let alone in the middle of words), although neither did he “flap”, as do Americans, ie make medial T sound more like a D.
For example:
Shakespeare: water.
RP: watuh.
US: wadder.
British English is no more correct than American English. Indeed, arguably less so, just as Sardinian preserves more conservative elements of Latin than does Italian.

Latitude
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 9:23 am

IF you believe in the models…then they prove that adjustments to past temps are a lie

HAS
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 1:15 pm

In fact the abstract suggests there is no problem with the models (and their estimates of climate sensitivity), it was the inputs (forcings) that are wrong.
Can anyone with access to the full paper tell us the basis for the assertion in the previous sentence of the abstract from the one fred quotes: “It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity”?

Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 8:02 pm

“2001 Space Odyssey showed what happens when you lie to computers. ”
Open the pod bay Hal.

Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 9:20 am

I wonder if these folks are reacting to the basic fact that there bread is buttered by a climate denying President.

J Mac
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 9:40 am

The citizen shareholders of the USA elected a new CEO, to ‘turn around’ a floundering US government that had been badly mismanaged by the socialist Obama administration. Accept the basic facts, RS.
While you’re at it, drop the asinine assertions like ‘climate denying’. It immediately shows your communication is both unreasonable and irrational.
Perhaps you need to take a ‘hiatus’?

Reasonable Skeptic
Reply to  J Mac
June 20, 2017 11:27 am

Sorry I triggered you 🙂 Relax, I am a total climate denier and I wear the badge proudly. I like to rub it in their faces that they call use deniers and then years after we point to problems they finally move the science to recognize the long time outstanding problem.
Look at the 2nd point of the 2nd tweet by Maue “we missed it”
Nope they ignored it. That is entirely a different thing. In fact it is anti science to have ignored it and it demonstrates that political expediency trumps (pun intended) professionalism.

J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
June 21, 2017 12:17 pm

Again, “climate denier”…..
You can call yourself anything you care to but no rational observer of temporal earth ‘denies’ that climate changes, naturally. Similar to n@zi and a few other despicable appellations, using the term in association with anyone else tar brushes them and exhibits irrational behavior by you. If you intend sarcasm, add ‘ /s ‘ to the end of your sentence. Better yet, just ‘give it a rest!’

paul courtney
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 9:40 am

They are pretty well-practiced at ignoring reality thus far, they can ignore the pres. too (unless marching against him). Really, RS, do you suppose heroic scientists saving the planet worry about base things like bread ‘n butter? You sound just like a science deni0r.

Richard M
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 10:06 am

When did the president deny there is a climate?

afonzarelli
Reply to  Richard M
June 20, 2017 12:15 pm

He prefers to call it “weather” (hence he’s denying climate… ☺)

TA
Reply to  Richard M
June 20, 2017 12:22 pm

Everyone knows the climate changes. Including Trump.
Noone, including Trump, and Trump’s critics, can prove humans have anything to do with causing the climate to change. Climate change was natural in the past, and until someone proves otherwise, it is still natural in the present.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Richard M
June 20, 2017 12:22 pm

Climate accord denier . . ; )

Doug
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 12:22 pm

“their” bread is buttered but why call him a climate denying President?
You seem a little hurt.

clipe
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 20, 2017 4:50 pm
J
June 20, 2017 9:21 am

So, what does this mean?
” We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
Does it mean the forcing due to CO2 was not as big as they thought?
CO2 forcing was not meeting the 20th century projections?

Trebla
Reply to  J
June 20, 2017 11:22 am

The way I read it is this. If you go by CO2 forcing alone, you get 1 degree Celsius warming per CO2 doubling. But in calibrating the models, that wasn’t enough to account for the actual temperature increase. They assumed CO2 was the cause of most of the warming (very little natural warming – how they can separate the two, I don’t know), so some kind of positive feedback was plugged in to get the models temperatures to line up with the CO2. Then comes the actual forecasting using the models, and the whole thing falls apart. They are learning what Einstein called his biggest blunder, the use of a fudge factor to get an equation to work. As the POTUS would say, SAD!

Thin Air
June 20, 2017 9:27 am

It will be fascinating to see out the Main Stream Media “digests” this. Or “regurgitates” it.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Thin Air
June 20, 2017 9:41 am

Thin Air – The MSM will take the path they have taken so very often:
They’ll simply ignore it.

TA
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
June 20, 2017 12:31 pm

“They’ll simply ignore it.”
That’s right. The partisan problem with the MSM is not only that they tell half-truths and lies, but they also refuse to tell the truth by remaining silent on a subject, when it suits their ideology. Lies of commission and lies of omission. Propaganda 101.

Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
June 20, 2017 1:30 pm

I don’t think so. The MSM will jump on any passing bandwagon.
Journalist’s come and journalist’s go. Some will shuffle off to other media, some will be sacked, some will die, some will cry, “that’s not what I meant”.
And the circus will move on.
The public will remain none the wiser.

Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
June 20, 2017 8:12 pm

I think it may be a sea change sort of thing.
The MSM sells advertising and controversy sells newspapers. It could well be the cAGW headline is sold out, dying on the vine. If so, we can expect a rapid reversal of position, which will continue an animated controversy for another five or ten years, selling papers and making them rich (or is it “itch”?).
Anyway, I wouldn’t be so sure the MSM really has a dog in this fight.

June 20, 2017 9:30 am

This paper
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2016/Mar/Ollila942015PSIJ23242.pdf
points out, on reevaluation of the Pinatubo volcanism in 1991, what revisions to sensitivities in the climate models should be considered. Basically points out a possible factor of 2 error….of course labelled a denier paper by those who aren’t good at calculations….but published and peer reviewed….

ferdberple
June 20, 2017 9:30 am

The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity.
================
these numbers establish that there is between 91-100% probability the asymmetry COULD be a result of “a model error in climate sensitivity”.

Tom Halla
June 20, 2017 9:32 am

This could get very interesting. It sorta, kinda, looks like a retraction of their previous handwaving on temperature in the real world v. GCM projections. It could be the case that they realize that their funding source is not buying their excuses, unlike the previous administration.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 20, 2017 1:32 pm

The knives are out. Scrabbling for their jobs.
AGW isn’t sacred after all.

rd50
June 20, 2017 9:35 am

Take a look at the last sentence of their conclusions:
“Our analysis is unlikely to reconcile divergent schools of thought
regarding the causes of dierences between modelled and observed
warming rates in the early twenty-first century. However, we have
shown that each hypothesized cause may have a unique statistical
signature. These signatures should be exploited in improving
understanding. Although scientific discussion about the causes of
short-term dierences between modelled and observed warming
rates is likely to continue19, this discussion does not cast doubt on
the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.”

Reply to  rd50
June 20, 2017 12:12 pm

Does this man have the first clue as to what the purpose of a conclusion in a scientific paper is supposed to be and what the meaning of ‘non sequitur’ is? Can’t access the full paper but how do you go from establishing that the models are currently useless as predictors of anything – when all of the predictions of AGW are based on those models – and finish your conclusion with the statement that none of the above casts any doubt on “the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming”.
That right there is crazy talk but I suppose poor Ben had no choice but to once again make with the little clown dance or otherwise he was in an express elevator to Den1er Hell – going down!

rd50
Reply to  cephus0
June 20, 2017 1:12 pm

He simply had to save the money!
Last sentence of the article was certainly not going to be included in the Abstract or any press release.
So much for peer review.

Roger Knights
Reply to  rd50
June 20, 2017 1:43 pm

“this discussion does not cast doubt on the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.”
So a warming of 1 degree by 2100 would qualify. That’s a slick diversion. The “consensus” (grin) skeptical case hasn’t been a denial of a 1-degree-by-2100 warming trend due to CO2, but a denial of a higher, dangerous degree of warming.

Dave Fair
Reply to  rd50
June 22, 2017 1:03 am

According to the climate science soothsayers, “anthropogenic” warming has been extant only for the period of approximately 1975 to 2000. [You could even give them the post-1950 period, if you throw in wild guesses about aerosols.] Nothing certainly before that; and nothing in the 21st Century, almost two decades, during which time CO2 levels increased dramatically.
Show me a study that actually shows “… the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.” “Long-term” would imply 75 to 100 years?

ferdberple
June 20, 2017 9:38 am

Here is the problem. Climate sensitivity is going down over time. By 2025 or so it will be zero, and going negative shortly afterwards. The more CO2 we add, the colder it will get. This is consistent with paleo history. Temperatures start dropping when CO2 levels are high, and they start increasing when CO2 levels are low.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.pngcomment image

gymnosperm
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 10:31 am

Does the decline in sensitivity estimates with time demonstrate reduced sensitivity or more refined understanding?
One could conclude from the cores that temperature leads the way up, and CO2 the way down…but at a ~40yr residence time, why the huge overshoot on the way down?

Tenn
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 10:33 am

Climate sensitivity is likely a small, negative number (-0.5). It is the ONLY explanation for the hiatus that makes sense. In fact you can perfectly replicate observations using this assumption.

Reply to  Tenn
June 20, 2017 10:58 am

It’s the only explanation for the long term stability of the climate also. Any significant +ve number would spell actual catastrophe in a very short time unless I have something badly skewed here.

Gabro
Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 1:16 pm

It’s also apt that ECS and TCS should approach equality.

Reply to  ferdberple
June 20, 2017 5:48 pm

Ferdperple sez:
“Climate sensitivity is going down over time.”
That’s your speculation with no scientific proof.
Your chart is meaningless nonsense — it does not support that conclusion.
” By 2025 or so it will be zero, and going negative shortly afterwards. ”
That’s your speculation with no scientific proof
“The more CO2 we add, the colder it will get.”
That’s your wild speculation with no evidence at all.
“This is consistent with paleo history.”
No it is not consistent.
The proxies with enough resolution are ice cores and they clearly show temperature changes lead CO2 level changes by hundreds of years. There are dozens of studies with that conclusion.
History shows the colder it gets the more CO2 oceans absorb with a lag
and the warmer it gets the more CO2 oceans release with a lag.
“Temperatures start dropping when CO2 levels are high,
and they start increasing when CO2 levels are low.”
More speculation that there is some natural control of CO2 levels..
High and low are also imprecise terms.
In general CO2 levels have been declining for billions of years
and may have reached an all-time low 20,0000 years ago.
No one knows for sure why temperatures changed
or if the cause(s) of the temperature changes
had anything to do with CO2 levels.
The evidence points to CO2 levels resulting from temperature changes.
Your comment is one speculation after another.
That’s not real science.
That’s wild guessing.

Ted
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 20, 2017 7:49 pm

Mr. Greene – I think you missed the inference that forms the core of his first few statements. ferdberple is not claiming that ‘actual climate sensitivity’ is going down over time, he is pointing out that the published estimates for climate sensitivity are going down over time, and his chart shows that quite clearly.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 24, 2017 11:39 am

To ferdpurple:
After posting my comment, I now feel your post was intended as a joke.
And I’ve been had like it was April Fool’s Day
If intended as a joke to mock climate science, then it was a great joke — I had no idea you were a secret jokester, as your posts are typically quite serious and scientific.
You showed a very short 15 year trend, from about 2001 to 2013, and extrapolated it to 2025.
That’s just like modern climate “science” — look back at the past, especially the past decade, and extrapolate that “trend” 100 years into the future.
In the early 2000’s a scientist/CO2 is evil believer would look back at the past ten years and see a lot of warming, so he would tend to predict a lot of warming from CO2 in the future.
In the late 2000’s a scientist/CO2 is evil believer would look back at the past ten years and see almost no warming, so he would tend to predict much less warming from CO2 in the future.
It’s all nonsense, of course.
Look back at the past ten years.
Blame any warming on CO2 with no proof CO2 caused any of the warming
Then extrapolate the past ten years 100 years into the future.

June 20, 2017 9:40 am

Climate modelling at this early stage in the study of our planet’s climate, is like modelling quantum physics with one box of Lego. Using the analogy our climate is a 10000 piece puzzle, we are aware of about 10 pieces, but not their interactions with each other or the time scales, all of which are extremely complex and chaotic to an extent. We won’t understand the planet’s climate systems or drivers for centuries, not decades. Discussing climate models is meaningless. Predicting climate changes utterly impossible. I wish attention and discussion would turn to studying the many variables in the climate systems, like the oceans, the sun, the clouds, cosmic effects, and the dozens of other variables.

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
June 20, 2017 1:38 pm

hollybirtwistle
“modelling quantum physics with one box of Lego”
Fantastic analogy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  hollybirtwistle
June 20, 2017 2:47 pm

Holly, you are assuming they are honest in their work. This has long been debunked. Sceptics have been tell these guys about the hiatus for over a decade. They’ve been telling them about oceanic oscillations and natural variability for decades. CliSci warmistst have been insulting us on this until today. You upgrade their chicanery greatly by mentioning quantum physics on this page. Manure is their subject.

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
June 24, 2017 11:42 am

hollybirtwistle
You seem like smart guy, so could you answer me this here question: I want to know when I sell my house and head for the hills to build a new house that will avoid the flooding from runaway global warming, how high should the hill be?

commieBob
June 20, 2017 9:47 am

These folks are just catching up with James Hansen. link
The CAGW position is becoming untenable and the alarmists are looking for excuses.

Wharfplank
June 20, 2017 9:51 am

Ah, great, pass the ammo. My friends and acquaintances know not to poke this bear about CAGW. I’m steadfast that until the models mirror observations that I’ll be calling bullsh*t whenever the subject comes up. So happy!

June 20, 2017 10:01 am

Friends
even these guys don’t get it {yet}
there is no global warming anymore; the satellites are wrong even to show warming.
I think this could have something to do with what it spewed from the sun, due to the reduced solar magnetic field strength: no probe in space can withstand it without detoriation/
My data sets from my own investigations show that it has started cooling
though you may consider it not much….
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:comment image
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:comment image
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable

Reply to  henryp
June 20, 2017 10:32 am

“I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable”
Welcome to the club. Temps go up and temps go down, but CO2 is not the cause.

Reply to  henryp
June 20, 2017 10:59 am

You probably just forgot to make adjustments.

Rick C PE
Reply to  henryp
June 22, 2017 8:49 pm

um… you do realize that with 4 data points and one point if inflection (change in sign of the slope) you can always fit a second order polynomial perfectly, right?

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 20, 2017 10:03 am

Lets *just* get a load of this…

Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur.

Q. What is a ‘coupled’ model? What’s it coupled to?
A. Garbage words
Q. ‘natural internal variability’ Since when did anything ‘natural’ happen inside a computer?
A. More garbage
Q. ‘simulations do not have the same phasing’ Does this mean things are cyclical? Cyclical things have ‘phase’ But wait, isn’t climate a ‘coupled non-linear’ blah blah
A. and am sorry people, but sine/cosines actually are linear. Non linear means singularities & chaos and chaos, does *not* by definition, have cycles.
Even if there were cycles in this supposedly non-linear climate, why is it impossible to match the phases? Its just a computer. Have they lost control of their own machines? What is wrong with these people?
Its just complete garbage.
And Michael Mann commented did he? More catty and childish snarkery I presume.
Actually makes a sort of sense. They are just a bunch of kids playing computer games and when they lose, come up with a flood of impenetrable garbage to try disguise their failings.
Its actually sad to the power of n because they themselves programmed to game. How *could* they possibly lose – unless they were totally clueless from the outset?
And they are, CO2 does not drive weather or climate or temperature or anything really.

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 20, 2017 10:35 am

” … CO2 does not drive weather or climate or temperature or anything really.”
🙂 +97

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 20, 2017 11:12 am

“Q. What is a ‘coupled’ model? What’s it coupled to?
A. Garbage words”
No not at all. Coupled field models are where you are modeling different parameters which interact with each other and that’s all it means. For example you can have an electromagnetic field input and the EM field input causes temperatures to change and that in turn causes fluid flows to change and so on and so forth. This would be a three field coupled model with electromagnetic, thermodynamical and fluid mechanical coupled fields. Takes a lot of processing power for these kind of things and any who run such models in the real world where you have to get accurate repeatable results know that the chance of doing it successfully with a planetary climate are zero to a very large number of decimal places and those who claim to be able to do it are delusional beyond all sanity.

billw1984
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
June 20, 2017 11:53 am

“why is it impossible to match the phases?” The cycles are not regular cycles so they can’t predict in advance when there will be ENSO events or how the PDO and AMO will evolve.

RAH
June 20, 2017 10:04 am

So:
STRIKE ONE: No Hot spot in the troposphere of the tropics as the physics behind the models demands.
STRIKE TWO: Demonstrated lack of skill in the models to forecast atmospheric temperatures
STRIKE THREE: Demonstrated failure to predict the now agreed on existence of the hiatus in atmospheric warming
STRIKE FOUR: Greenland Ice sheet running at near record mass balance which is directly opposite of what was predicted.
STRIKE FIVE: Sea level rise rate generally remains consistent with data recorded in pre-industrial times.
STRIKE SIX: Reports on the impending demise of Arctic Sea Ice have been greatly exaggerated.
STRIKE SEVEN: Increases in severe weather and climatic events have failed to materialize as predicted. IE: there is no permanent drought in Texas or California and in fact for the first time in memory the Palmer drought index map for the US shows no “Extreme” drought anywhere and only the SW corner of ND and the very southern tip of Texas are indicated to have “severe” drought.
STRIKE EIGHT: World wide crop production has continued to increase setting new records for several years running contrary to the claims that “climate change” would cause markedly reduced production.
I’m sure plenty of others to add to the list.

Reply to  RAH
June 20, 2017 10:38 am

Great list. Thanks for that comment.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  RAH
June 20, 2017 11:15 am

… markedly reduced production.
Just a point of clarification: There seems to be some confusion of “rate of increase in yield” versus actual yield or production. I can believe a decrease in the “rate of increase” of yield per area. Crop harvested is a totally different matter.
The “yield” issue is about agricultural science.
Production is about economics.
[I recall Willis E. posting about these issues.]

joel
Reply to  RAH
June 20, 2017 2:25 pm

Ummh.. You only get three strikes. Thought you should know.

RAH
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2017 5:03 pm

If that were true the scam would be dead. It’s not. It’s “T” ball and they still can’t hit the ball.

South River Independent
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2017 9:15 pm

Takes 9 strikes to retire the side.

MarkW
Reply to  RAH
June 20, 2017 2:47 pm

CO2 doesn’t block energy from the sun.

Reply to  RAH
June 20, 2017 5:33 pm

Only eight strikes?
How about the complete lack of evidence that anything abnormal has happened to our climate in the past 150 years … other than getting better … and better … and better?
How about the complete lack of evidence of any positive feedback(s) tripling the warming claimed to happen from CO2 alone = never seen in any climate proxies, or in the real time measurements since 1850?
How about a complete lack of evidence to make the claim that natural climate change suddenly ended in 1975, after 4.5 billion years, and CO2 suddenly took over as the climate controller in 1975?

Joel Snider
June 20, 2017 10:15 am

So, if the ‘hiatus’ existed after all, are skeptics still reprobates for saying so at the time?
Kind of ‘tree falling in the woods’ question.

drednicolson
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 20, 2017 12:26 pm

The answer will probably be along the lines of skeptics being “right for the wrong reasons”, and still reprobates. 😐

Joel Snider
Reply to  drednicolson
June 20, 2017 12:58 pm

You’re probably right – a perfect act of self-serving, retro-rationalization.

JB Say
June 20, 2017 10:17 am

Haha: “systematic deficiencies”
Its like getting Fonzie to admit he was wrong.

afonzarelli
Reply to  JB Say
June 20, 2017 12:24 pm

i was wro, wrr, wroosh, wron (almost got it there), wrrrggg…

Reply to  JB Say
June 20, 2017 7:51 pm

Not “systematic” but “systemic”. Which means they don’t know any better.

Sparky
June 20, 2017 10:29 am

Should have also noted Karl paper (early ‘draft’) that was released to goose the Obama-Paris political machine has been roundly debunked by even those on the sky-is-falling crowd.

Bruce Cobb
June 20, 2017 10:31 am

But,but,but, isn’t the missing heat hiding in the oceans, just biding its time? It’s the boogeyheat!

Rick C PE
June 20, 2017 10:36 am

Well I think it’s obvious that the authors must be secretly accepting funding from the fossil fuel industry. Maybe understandable as it seems likely their US taxpayer funding will be substantially cut. Need to check DeSm..g.org to see if they’ve been added to the list of “den1er$”.
/sarc

Michael Jankowski
June 20, 2017 10:45 am

Shocked Mosh hasn’t appeared to note that RSS’ calcs use a model.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
June 20, 2017 10:47 am

I’m waiting for his latest explanation of why the climate status quo is always right.
Andrew

Zonga
June 20, 2017 11:00 am

Not. Tired. Of. Winning.

michael hart
June 20, 2017 11:13 am

There was a time when even most of the fake stream media were quite happy using the term “lukewarmer”, indicating that they are mostly quite capable of understanding the concept. It would be an interesting study in itself to ask why so many of them then decided to favor the D-word, when the facts are falling entirely on the side of the lukewarmers.

June 20, 2017 11:26 am

Griff? Griff? Where are you, Griff, with your usual copy and paste quotations from “peer-reviewed” publications? Griff?

Reply to  Don Perry
June 20, 2017 1:49 pm

Don Perry
Awwww…..Don’t be mean to Griff. At least he tests sceptical science. And loses, admittedly, as does Mosher.
There’s a hymn about that: “Oh come all ye faithful”.

joel
Reply to  Don Perry
June 20, 2017 2:22 pm

Be kind. No gloating. They have to have time to mourn. And, figure out the next bogus crisis requiring more govt control of our lives.

Mark L Gilbert
Reply to  joel
June 21, 2017 8:18 am

Looks like Water Shortage is the next mule LOL

Javert Chip
Reply to  Don Perry
June 20, 2017 10:01 pm

Griff is out counting polar bears and trying to beat up women…

South River Independent
Reply to  Eric H
June 20, 2017 9:23 pm

That tears it. We are all going to die.

June 20, 2017 11:42 am

“97% of all climate scientists who express an opinion about the hiatus in abstracts of their reports believe the hiatus is real”
or something like that.

June 20, 2017 11:45 am

Temperature within the current ice age varies by 13C. You’ll never prove any effect of anything on it.

Jeffrey Mitchell
June 20, 2017 11:46 am

My concern about this paper is this: the news cycle presents its conclusions and then moves on. What remains for fact checking are Wikipedia’s biased articles which still claim there is no pause, and that the hockey stick is still good science. That is if I understood the articles correctly. Here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
As with snopes.com any article about something politically controversial needs to be taken with a few tons of salt. It is unfortunate, but the lack of trust generated by the dishonesty spills over into less controversial areas.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Jeffrey Mitchell
June 20, 2017 3:24 pm

You could easily update Wikipedia to reflect this development (anyone can edit wikipedia). Simply reference the paper in your edit and you’ll be gold.

michael hart
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 20, 2017 3:40 pm

Actually, many people report that you will likely find that you can’t update Wikipedia, or that any changes may be reversed.
Wikipedia certainly still has very many good pages. Probably the majority. But in some areas you may as well be trying to push water uphill. This is now a politicized topic, and Wikipedia cannot be trusted on heavily politicized topics. On ‘global-warming’ you should trust Wikipedia about as much as you might trust it when, for example, reading about Israel/Palestine politics.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 20, 2017 5:43 pm

As long as you attribute whatever you say with a reference it falls within Wikipedia’s guidelines. Yes, someone can remove what you edit, but you can go back and remove what they did to restore your edit. If someone removes something without cause it can be contested. Somebody has to be committed to following the process through, though.

Editor
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 20, 2017 6:51 pm

I wonder where William Connelley is these days.
He made a great gatekeeper at Wikipedia before we gave up on Wikipedia as a source of informed climate information.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/25/the-sad-tales-of-the-wikipedia-gang-war-regarding-wuwt-creepy-and-a-little-scary/
I wonder what he thinks of this paper.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 24, 2017 11:57 am

Wikipedia is a majority rule bogus “encyclopedia.”
The majority also tend to be young and liberal.
I once signed up to correct an article about audiophiles, based on my 40 years of experience as an audiophile.
The article was so far from reality that I went through the trouble of signing up and posting corrections.
The IPCC may be 95% certain, but I was 99% certain my corrections would have made the article better.
My corrections of some completely incorrect claims were “deleted before the ink dried”.
I tried again using very simple clear language, thinking I was not concise enough.
Again, my corrections were “deleted before the ink dried”
I never attempted to edit Wikipedia again, and that was ten years ago.
Wikipedia is majority-ruled trash.
It is fine for looking up who played “Beaver” on the “Leave it to Beaver” TV show — that’s about it.
I’ve been writing an economics newsletter since 1977 — I would NEVER trust Wikipedia for information if there was another source … and even if there was NOT another source.
When I find out a person is dishonest, I never trust them again.
I found out Wikipedia is dishonest.
They prefer a misleading article with incorrect points … with a link to a source … to an accurate article with no incorrect points from a person with 40 years of experience as the source.
And although misleading and incorrect points can be changed, at least for a few minutes, the changes will be reversed by the majority-rule mob by the next day.
I can’t imagine what Wikipedia says about climate change … nor do I care!

JP
June 20, 2017 11:48 am

But, but, Phoenix is 368 degrees F, and the Mohave is hot and dry and stuff … never mind…

Amber
June 20, 2017 12:04 pm

I take it that if the over hyped global warming manufactures (“scientists”) are now saying there is a pause then it’s actually cooling and that is a concern .The only good thing is as CO2 rises and it’s cooling the global warming fear mongering industry goes dark .
Let real science be restored to it’s rightful place .

Jeffrey Mitchell
Reply to  Amber
June 20, 2017 12:47 pm

At the moment, I think they’re finally realizing they have to give in, not that the climate is cooling. We frequently joke about the Gore Effect wherein wherever Gore is, it snows or the like. But that is weather, and it is only a joke. Your comment is a fun take though.

Reply to  Jeffrey Mitchell
June 24, 2017 12:04 pm

The real Al Gore Effect:
When Gore has a lot of face time on TV, as in the 1990s, the world gets warmer.
When Gore is nearly invisible, as he was after he lost in 2000, the warming stops.
This is conclusive proof that the primary cause global warming is Al Gore’s “hot air”
I do not expect a lot of global warming in the future because Mr. Gore is too busy spending his money at all-you-can-eat-buffets, and plans a second carer as a professional wrestler under the moniker “The Blimp

Bill Treuren
June 20, 2017 12:15 pm

The real money in the future is not CAGW but in understanding why it did not happen. There may be less jobs but they will be the only jobs.
These folk are the smarts and will win the work in the new world order.
Court Jesters no more than that.
Even the fossil fuel industry is screaming for a carbon tax their last chance to kill the coal industry their biggest rival to gas.
Personally I am happy for the world to maintain a watching brief and maybe a modest carbon tax to encourage a migration to gas which is clearly a very capable fuel for the world that we now live in.
Principally the green industry lives in the ideological space and they work in the watermelon mode.
Lets encourage the separation of science from politics I do not like the prospect the worlds future being based around a Marxist process we have had 100 million dead in the first 100 years.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Bill Treuren
June 20, 2017 1:58 pm

“Even the fossil fuel industry is screaming for a carbon tax their last chance to kill the coal industry their biggest rival to gas.”
I suspect it’s more likely that they were pressured to do so behind the scenes, and that they worried about being boycotted or slimed if they didn’t go along with the crowd.

effinayright
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 20, 2017 2:51 pm

Oh great! Let’s all get on board with naked “Crony Capitalism” to save the planet!
Snort!

LarryFine
June 20, 2017 12:20 pm

I couldn’t find this important news on the BBC website, but they do have a front-page story in which it’s claimed that Global Warming will not only make coffee more expensive but poor-tasting, as well.
By the way, I came across this gem, while looking to see who was reporting this news. Whom do you suppose would repopulate the Earth after a nuclear holocaust? According to their plans, it would be the elites and their secretaries! You can’t make this stuff up!
“The wives of public officials would not be admitted to the elite hideout [nuclear shelters] but secretaries would”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618354/How-government-elites-plan-survive-nuclear-attack.html#ixzz4kZUhsC4q
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TTbfb_o5-kg/VIXdrAFnG4I/AAAAAAAB_jQ/yqKRbxE1etc/s1600/Atomic%2BWar!%2B(2).jpg

Gabro
June 20, 2017 12:50 pm

Now that they hope it’s over, CACA cultists are willing to concede the obvious, ie that there was a plateau in global warming during all of this century before the super El Nino of 2015-16, despite rapidly rising CO2 all that time.
But will their newfound honesty permit them to recognize when the plateau returns, as earth cools off from the late SEN?

Jeffrey Mitchell
June 20, 2017 12:51 pm

Its the Daily Mail. And yes, they do make this stuff up.

Bill J
June 20, 2017 12:52 pm

” We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
They refuse to admit or believe that the models could be wrong so they blame the” external forcings” input. A tweak here an adjustment there and everything is fine.
Tamino has tortured the data over and over to prove there was no hiatus which means the peer-reviewed science and the IPCC were wrong. More proof that we can’t trust the science!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Toronto
June 20, 2017 12:55 pm

Well this is a red-faced red-letter day.
Now, watch as the pleas for more and more money to research ‘the problem’ flood the funding pot managers.
It makes the outrageous replies to Sen Cruz provided by the president of the Sierra Club all the more glaring and ridiculous. When pointedly and repeatedly asked if he (the prez) would accept the science showing there had been no significant warming for the past 18 years, the reply was waffle, appeals to authority and never a hint of a ‘yes’. He said that those who don’t agree with ‘the consensus’ were in the pay of the oil companies.
The way to control both of these things, the modelers’ claims and the stonewalling of actual data, is to only fund the best 25% of predictive sciences. If I was generous I would accept 50% as the dropoff mark. Obviously the Sierra Club disqualifies itself by refusing to accept actual measurements in favour of putative claimed agreement by a shadowy, unnamed, untraceable group of ‘scientists’.
The models could run as they wish, but the least accurate half would receive no more funding for a year. Give them a year to prove they should be let back into the mainstream. If they fail again by being in the least accurate half, out for good.
There is no reason to fund manifest, serial failure. The Model outputs of the Farmer’s Almanac would be in the top 10% for years, I reckon.

joel
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Toronto
June 20, 2017 2:17 pm

The President of the Sierra Club was an embarrassment to anybody who believes in AGW. He didn’t even know what the Pause referred to. I believe he is no longer the President of the Sierra Club.

Catcracking
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2017 3:04 pm

Yes, I saw him at the congressional hearings, he was a big embarrassment to the cause.
Could not answer questions at all.

RWturner
June 20, 2017 12:59 pm

After the climate scam is over, some of these scientists may be successful hedge fund managers.

Michael Jennings
June 20, 2017 1:00 pm

Some of you came close but still have not quite gotten what this paper is all about. It is a form of CYA and hedging that people go through when they realize they have overplayed their hand in public pronouncements. The real reason for the paper is nothing more than increased Government funding. You see, AGW will still need to be studied further in order to determine the risk factors of continuing to drop additional Co2, Methane and other trace gases in the atmpsphere (not to mention the oceans), but the real payoff will be in the addtional funding required by Universities, Computer Modellers, and Scientific Institutes to determine what was wrong in the models that caused them to overreact. Don’t you see the brillance of this “admission” that maybe they overhyped things just a tad? Now they can seek additional funding to improve their models in order to be more correct,…. next time. Brilliant brilliant ploy by the AGW crowd and you all fell for it.:-)

joel
Reply to  Michael Jennings
June 20, 2017 2:16 pm

You know, it would be fine to give them more funding if they went away and did science instead of trying to control the Western world’s industrial policy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2017 3:03 pm

Joel, you know that in an earlier generation, these guys would be lucky to be highschool science teachers. No more cash!

Magoo
Reply to  Michael Jennings
June 20, 2017 4:15 pm

You hit the nail on the head there Michael, they admit as much in the paper:
‘In conclusion, the temporary `slowdown’ in warming in the
early twenty-first century has provided the scientific community
with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding of internal
variability and external forcing, and to develop improved climate
observations, forcing estimates, and model simulations. Further
work is necessary to reliably quantify the relative magnitudes
of the internally generated and externally forced components of
temperature change. It is also of interest to explore whether surface
temperature yields results consistent with those obtained here for
tropospheric temperature.’

patrick michaels
Reply to  Michael Jennings
June 20, 2017 5:10 pm

Correcto.

michaelspj
Reply to  patrick michaels
June 20, 2017 5:11 pm

BTW check Curry’s blog tomorrow on the upcoming National Assessment

Taphonomic
June 20, 2017 1:01 pm

Full copy of paper available at: https://sci-hub.io/10.1038/ngeo2973

Bill Illis
Reply to  Taphonomic
June 20, 2017 5:43 pm

Thanks Taphonomic.
Always read the full papers in this climate science area and then get the actual data.
Abstracts and news releases are useless.
In this case, however, the paper is also as much garbage as the abstract and the news releases.
The only conclusion contained in it worth anything is that the lower troposphere TMT provides a good check on whether the recent surface temperature “adjustments” are valid or not. There is no conclusion per se but the indication is that the TMT layer did not exhibit the changes that the Karl 2015 adjustments were supposed to correct for. It was in fact, a non-legitimate adjustment.
The rest of it refers back and forth between the Supplemental Figures and the paper and just turns into a typical clusterF Mannian-math out-of-world experience. The only other conclusion is that the TMT does not show the warming predicted (but you have to have had previous out-of-world experiences with climate science papers to read that into it.)

Neo
June 20, 2017 1:10 pm

“settled science” morphs into “new settled science”

Zigmaster
June 20, 2017 1:19 pm

It would not be surprising to find more scientists recognising that if the science is settled the logical conclusion is that they should be out of a job. In Australia a couple of years ago there was uproar when the minister responsible for funding the CSIRO suggested a huge number of job cuts in that institution because the settled science meant there was less need to spend funds on climate science research. The government backed down under pressure from the left and the cuts were substantially watered down but the logical conclusion remains. Settled science is a job killer for thousands of climate scientists.
The next logical conclusion ( which fortunately President Trump has made) is that if it is now a consensus that there is no consensus then there is great risk ( politically and financially) to implementing economically damaging policies based on such uncertainty.

June 20, 2017 1:19 pm

What the paper did not do was explain the discrepancy. Easy. 6-7 orders of computational intractability (see guest post on models for details) means key processes like convection (Tstorms) have to be parameterized. The CMIP5 ‘experimental design’ required tuning these parameters from YE2005 back to 1975 to produce the best mandatory 3 decade hindcast. That brings in the attribution problem. The temperature increase from ~1920-1945 is essentially indistguishable from 1975-2000, the tuning period. Yet AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 was clear that the earlier warming period was mostly natural and not AGW; not enough change in CO2 to be causal. Natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. Collossal logic fail, and now Santer and Mann need to own it.

Reply to  ristvan
June 20, 2017 2:44 pm

Clay C, many of your subcomments reveal real lack of knowledge. Gasses are compressible by definition. That is in all climate atmospheric models I have studied in detail– stuff like embedded lapse rates. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas–yes, so it WARMS our planet from ~-18C to ~+15C. Cooling!?! Your fire/rock analogy is utterly inapt. Please learn the basics of GHG physics, and stop giving the rest of us skeptics a bad name by association.

Reply to  ristvan
June 20, 2017 5:00 pm

@Clay C
Great comment Clay. Someday, the fools will realize that the Atmospheric Effect (or GHE if we must) is not a radiative GHE. Till then, people who don’t understand thermodynamics will scoff. Ah, but someday school boys will laugh at them.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  ristvan
June 21, 2017 5:11 am

“contributing to massive cooling after it’s helped stop 20% available firelight of the sun reaching our planet”
Solar near infrared absorption by atmospheric water vapour is NOT albedo. It’s heating the atmosphere, keeping the surface warmer at night and at high latitudes.

JohnKnight
June 20, 2017 1:46 pm

I suspect we may have gotten got a sort of prelude here, on Anthony’s “I need help” post, by someone calling himself ‘Frank’, who seemed very well informed about the “official” maths/models etc. . . who ended his (first) comment with;
“Finally, the planet warmed 0.5 K during two recent El Nino’s due to fluctuations in heat exchange between the surface and the deep ocean. (El Nino’s are unforced or internal variability, they are caused redistribution of heat within the planet, not “forced” by changes in radiation entering or exiting the planet.) So, there is no point in trying to draw conclusions about the existence of an enhanced GHE or estimate climate sensitivity from short-term observations such as the “Pause” – which ended dramatically in 2014. Nevertheless, many do.”
His comment(s) seemed a bit odd to me, especially under the circumstances, and I refrained from engaging on the (to me) somewhat nonsensical notion that the period of greatest human CO2 emissions resulting in a (tacitly admitted it seemed) flat-lining of temps being so casually brushed aside. So when I saw this current post I checked the (rather long) authors of the subject paper list, and sure enough there’s a ‘Frank’ on it . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 20, 2017 2:08 pm

The probability of the name “Frank” being absent from a author list of the given length is low (between zero and about 9%). 😉

JohnKnight
Reply to  Michael Palmer
June 20, 2017 3:03 pm

(Zero ; )
Strange we see none commenting here ; )

Gabro
Reply to  JohnKnight
June 20, 2017 2:54 pm
June 20, 2017 1:47 pm

Santer et. al. write: “The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)”
I’d translate this to mean, in simple language, the models flatly overestimate the effects of hypothetical climate drivers, in this example, carbon dioxide. I believe what’s being said here is that observed natural variability is incapable of explaining the “pause”, and that in fact, the models just grossly overestimate the effects of carbon dioxide.
Or did I miss something? Since I was recently banned from commenting on this subject by a popular mass media outlet, it could be?

rd50
Reply to  Bartleby
June 20, 2017 2:17 pm

Yes you did miss something, the last sentence of the article”
“Although scientific discussion about the causes of
short-term differences between modelled and observed warming
rates is likely to continue, this discussion does not cast doubt on
the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.”
You see, the modeling can miss a short-term prediction, but never a long-term prediction.

Gary Pearse
June 20, 2017 2:04 pm

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP…However, OCCAM still needs new blades. They state that although natural variability compromised the upslope on 21st Century temps, that this is because models didn’t allow for changes in 2000 forcing, but Santer states natural variation had nothing to do with the 80s-90s warming!!! This is ‘Sauve qui peut’ manipulation, not science! So, they are only half there. They know the other half would kill the whole show.
Anyway, Cruz should reconvene the Senate hearing and say that that consensus science turned out not to be correct, after all. Indeed, perjury should be considered. I think Trump and Pruitt should now go gangbusters and start looking at malfeasance of at least 50 main culprits. It should include restitution of cash obtained under false pretenses. Karl should have his pension cut.
These ‘carnival barkers’ should be offered a modest retirement package and excluded from raising research funds. Steyn’s lawyers will be ecstatic.

joel
June 20, 2017 2:13 pm

Can someone explain why Dr. Mann is on this paper. I thought he was a tree ring guy. Is this just a gimme?

Reply to  joel
June 20, 2017 2:55 pm

Nope. It is evidence of those on the Titanic rallying around a possible lifeboat, in their minds. Warmunists all, recognizing obviously failed models. So send more money so we can fix them…. despite the previously settled science.

Reply to  joel
June 24, 2017 12:10 pm

The more papers a “scientist” signs, the more papers he can claim he wrote.
That impresses people.
Example: Announcer says:
“Mr. Mann, author of 2,345 scientific papers, is tonight’s first climate change speaker”.
Never mind that he only signed 2,329 of them, and never even read them.
He’ll probably sue me now,

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 2:32 pm

BBC news is saying aircraft grounded at Phoenix today because of 48 degree temperatures which means they can’t fly and the usual crap predictions of more heatwaves, doom by the end of the century etc etc etc. No mention of any pause.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2017 3:10 pm

I did hear that on Limbaugh today, and it was only one model of commuter plane, a Bombardier stretch, while all other jets were still flying as normal.

Katana
June 20, 2017 2:38 pm

The way back from the abyss for these climate scientists (not) and scientific institutions (not any more) is to acknowledge what they have heretofore denied; the effect of TSI variations. UV is now known to vary as much as 10% versus 1% for the Visible and IR spectrums. The guilty parties will plead ignorance in the face of new knowledge and go on to fabricate new creeds to accomplish their ends.

Gabro
Reply to  Katana
June 20, 2017 3:13 pm

At the higher energy ranges of UV, which make and break ozone, variation is even more than that.

rogerthesurf
June 20, 2017 3:11 pm

This could be the beginning of the end for AGW. “Scientists” are changing sides, before its too late, as they observe that their lies are finding them out.
However UN initiatives Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 – ICLEI and the Rockefeller’s “Sustainability” project creep on.
I personally believe that nowadays – if not always- the United Nations is a corrupt power seeking bureaucracy with a dangerous agenda of its own and needs to go.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

A C Osborn
Reply to  rogerthesurf
June 21, 2017 4:52 am

Don’t forget DICED as well.

Amber
June 20, 2017 4:13 pm

Maybe a few of the biggest scary global warming promoters don’t want to show their grand kids they participated in one of the biggest science fiction whoppers in history or they just feel there is more room to be scientifically objective , which after all is what science is about .
I give them credit for at least being less strident . The field is new and far from settled .

JohninRedding
June 20, 2017 4:22 pm

“Santer’s paper argues the “hiatus” or “slowdown” in warming “has provided the scientific community with a valuable opportunity to advance understanding” of the climate system and how to model it.” The problem is all these scientists assume that human activity is a major contributor to global warming so their models “attempt” to factor that in. But if the human affect is marginal or non-existent, they will always be missing real world actually because their models are including factors, aka CO2, that do not have an big enough impact to be included. The people looking at the solar activity are on the right track. And there is nothing we humans can do to change that.

rob
June 20, 2017 4:39 pm

Was there also a hiatus in CO2 rising?

Roger Knights
Reply to  rob
June 20, 2017 10:22 pm

No.

mkuske
June 20, 2017 4:44 pm

I’m always curious about how alarmists justify statements like, “…one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness” when evaluating global warming” when their whole theory is based on the one 18 year period of warming from 1980-1998.

Reply to  mkuske
June 24, 2017 12:18 pm

mkuske:
Their theory is based on the warming from the early 1990s to the early 2000s — it looks like a permanent step up to a new range on a chart.
That quick step up accounts for most of the warming after 1975.
You obviously don’t understand modern climate “science”.
The modern :”scientist” looks for the decade with the most warming, and extrapolates it 100 years into the future.
When asked how they “know” the future climate, they say:
we are government scientists,
are you?
we have advanced science degrees,
do you?
we have super computers,
do you?
and we see runaway global warming coming,
Why?
Because we say so, that’s why.

Michael darby
June 20, 2017 5:11 pm

Careful Mr. Clay C, Ristvan is a trained lawyer, he did not make it his life’s work. He thinks he knows science, but it’s clear you’ve seen through his charade.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Michael darby
June 20, 2017 10:26 pm

Ristvan has over a dozen patents and held a top technical / managerial position at Motorola. I believe he’s also published in the scientific literature. That’s off the top of my head.

June 20, 2017 5:25 pm

Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed GMST has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Box TS.3, Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one third to one half of the trend over 1951–2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04°C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11°C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in NH winter. Even with this ‘hiatus’ in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST.
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it (IPCC don’t know. TS.6) and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. (They aren’t.) {2.4.3, 9.4.1; Box 9.2; Table 2.7}
Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combina¬tion of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}
Box 9.3 | Understanding Model Performance
This Box provides a synthesis of findings on understanding model performance based on the model evaluations discussed in this chapter.
Uncertainty in Process Representation
Some model errors can be traced to uncertainty in representation of processes (parameterizations). Some of these are long-standing issues in climate modelling, reflecting our limited, though gradually increasing, understanding of very complex processes and the inherent challenges in mathematically representing them. For the atmosphere, cloud processes, including convection and its interaction with boundary layer and larger-scale circulation, remain major sources of uncertainty (Section 9.4.1). These in turn cause errors or uncertainties in radiation which propagate through the coupled climate system. Distribution of aerosols is also a source of uncertainty arising from modelled microphysical processes and transport (Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.6). Ocean models are subject to uncertainty in parameterizations of vertical and horizontal mixing and convection (Sections 9.4.2, 9.5.2 and 9.5.3), and ocean errors in turn affect the atmosphere through resulting SST biases. Simulation of sea ice is also affected by errors in both the atmosphere and the ocean as well as the parameterization of sea ice itself (Section 9.4.3). With respect to biogeochemical components in Earth System Models (ESMs), parameterizations of nitrogen limitation and forest fires are thought to be important for simulating the carbon cycle, but very few ESMs incorporate these so far (Sections 9.4.4 and 9.4.5).

Herbert
June 20, 2017 5:29 pm

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast the following Catalyst program on 16 October, 2014, ” Global Warming Pause”-
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4107264.htm
The cast of interviewees included two of the authors of the latest Santer paper, England and Meehl as well as Kevin Trenbath opposed to Judith Curry and Garth Paltridge among others.
Given the notorious global warming stance of the ABC,the not surprising conclusion of the program was,” all things considered, there has been no global warming pause.”
The prospects of any retraction correction or clarification or indeed any acknowledgement of Santer et al 2017 are nil.

Old44
June 20, 2017 6:08 pm

“model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed”
The word you are looking you nuff muffs is “cooler”

Roger Knights
Reply to  Old44
June 20, 2017 10:28 pm

Nope. The model projections have proved to be warmer than what’s actually happened (“observed”).

Editor
June 20, 2017 6:28 pm

Dellers has weighed in too (he may have heard it first here)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/20/delingpole-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/

The ‘Pause’ in global warming is real and the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures have failed.
This is the shocking admission of a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience. It’s shocking because the paper’s lead author is none other than Ben Santer – one of the more vociferous and energetic alarmists exposed in the Climategate emails.
According to the paper’s abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
And:
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
Translation: the real-world temperature increases were much smaller than our spiffy, expensive computer models predicted.

observa
June 20, 2017 7:16 pm

Abstract:
The models were wrong so we’ll need more grants to fix the deficiencies.

Editor
June 20, 2017 8:07 pm

What the heck is firelight, and why do you use that term?
And 80% of the sun’s firelight ought to still try to warm the surface. OTOH, the surface will still be radiating as much as it did before. That’s what I would call cooling.
Firelight kinda reminds me of Tom Swift in the Caves of Nuclear Fire, http://www.tomswift.info/homepage/nucfire.html

Herbert
June 20, 2017 8:35 pm

On 16 October,2014 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast the Catalyst program, ” Global Warming Pause.
See http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4107264.htm
Two of the co-authors of the Santer et al 2017 paper, English and Meehl were interviewees together with Kevin Trenbath opposed to Judith Currie, Garth Paltridge and others.
Unsurprisingly, the conclusion of the program was ,” all things considered, there was no warming pause.”
The prospects of any apology, correction or clarification are nil.

RoHa
June 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Does this mean I have to stop believing in the pause?

June 20, 2017 10:00 pm

Getting the history right to getting the climate conclusions correct;
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-the-russians-conceived-the-global-warming-scam/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20Jun-20-2017&utm_medium=email
When Russian collusion was daily, mainstream NYTimes backed and lingers to this day.

David Harrington
June 21, 2017 1:58 am

A new phobia “Homeostasisphibia”. It could catch on

David Harrington
June 21, 2017 1:58 am

* Homeostasisphobia

June 21, 2017 2:19 am

Johnny come lately. Santer must have recognized the divergence in model simulations and real world observations at least a decade ago: simply couldnt let go of the funding gravy train. Congress needs to get Trump’s proposed budget passed. Cuts are on the way. MAGA

Ron Manley
June 21, 2017 2:56 am

For at least the ;last 5 years I have been arguing something similar on my web site – http://www.climatedata.info. In particular in a blog post almost five years ago I identified the significance of the AMO in global temperature. You can see it at:
http://www.climatedata.info/discussions/blogger/index.php?id=3913438606057810510

Yogi Bear
June 21, 2017 4:23 am

“Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur.”
It’s not complicated to extrapolate a 65-69 year AMO period envelope, they would have a natural variability amplitude error rather than a phasing error. That’s the price to pay for hiding the 1970’s decline.
“Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability.”
Again suggesting a Nat Var cycle amplitude error, and a too rapid modelled warming trend.

TA
June 21, 2017 5:59 am

Here is some pertinent information on Mr. Ben Santer:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/20/delingpole-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/
“The fact that Ben Santer is involved in this embarrassing retraction – his admission on the Pause is bad enough, but what the paper says about the unreliability of the computer models is breathtaking in its implications – will be particularly piquant to those who remember his prominent role in the Climategate emails.
Santer revealed himself to be one of the nastier and more aggressive members of Michael Mann’s “Hockey” team when he emailed one of his colleagues:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
(Climatologist Pat Michaels, now of the Cato Institute, incurred Santer’s wrath by being one of the first climate scientists to pour cold water on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. In other words, Michaels made the disgusting, punishment-worthy error of using actual science and being right).
But perhaps Santer’s lowest point was the occasion where he effectively hijacked one of the early IPCC Assessment Reports and ramped up the scaremongering in a way that had rather more to do with political activism than it did to science.
I describe it in my book Watermelons:
Ben who? Well quite. Unless his name rings a bell as the guy from the Climategate emails who wanted to “beat the crap out of” climate sceptic Pat Michaels, you almost certainly won’t have heard of him. Yet in the mid-90s this climate modeling nonenity was somehow placed in the extraordinary position of being able to dictate world opinion on global warming at the stroke of a pen.
He achieved this in his role as “lead author” of Chapter 8 of the scientific working group report on the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). Nothing to write home about there, you might think, except that Santer was personally responsible for by far the most widely reported sentence in the entire report: the one from the Summary for Policy Makers (the only part of the IPCC’s Assessment Report most people actually bother to read) claiming “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
But was this line actually true? Was this really a fair summary – the kind of summary the IPCC purports rigorously and definitively to give of us – of the general state of scientific understanding at that particular moment? Er, well not according to some of the scientists who’d contributed to that chapter of the report, no.
The original version of the chapter – as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors – expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is “We do not know.”
Strangely, none of these passages made it to the final draft. They were among 15 deleted after the event by Santer, who also inserted a phrase entirely of his own to the effect that “the body of statistical evidence” now “points to a discernible human influence on climate.” In other words the chapter did not represent the “consensus” position reached by 28 scientists. What it in fact represented was the scientifically unsupported opinion of one man, Benjamin D Santer.”
end excerpt
Ben Santer is one of the guys who just “made it up out of thin air” when promoting claims that humans are causing the climate to change. He used his position to fool and scare millions of people into doing irrational things like spending billions of dollars on windmills.
The Deceivers should be punished for spreading these costly, harmful lies. Look at the problems they have caused.

June 21, 2017 6:41 am

The simple reason why the models are wrong is that all the establishment scientists make the same gross error of scientific judgement and ignore the millennial temperature cycle which peaked in 2003/4.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
See Fig 4 from the link.comment image
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
For an obvious example if the inflection point see Fig 11comment image
And for the forecast of the coming cooling and comparison with the IPCC fantasies see Fig 12comment image
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2004 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2004.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2004 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.

ThinkingScientist
June 21, 2017 7:01 am

Taken directly from the transcript of the Congressional Hearing on Climate Science, 29 March 2017:
Dr. MANN: “Well, thanks for the question, and I would say, you
know, that statement that the satellite data somehow disprove
human-caused climate change, it’s what I can an RUS. It’s a ridiculously
untrue statement. And the surface and near-surface temperature
records—in fact, if we can show Exhibit A from my written
statement here, it shows that all of the surface and near-surface
temperature records agree that there’s a steady long-term pattern
of warming. That’s true for the temperatures measured by
thermometers at the surface, the balloon measurements in the
lower atmosphere, and both John’s satellite data set and other estimates
from the same satellite data.
Now, I should point out that that’s John’s satellite data set after
it’s been corrected for numerous errors that he had made over the
years and which came to light because of other attempts by other
researchers to reproduce his results, and ultimately now with those
corrections, his satellite record is basically consistent with these
other records. They all show long-term warming, and I would add,
by the way, that if he is right, that the mid and upper troposphere
are not warming as fast as the models say, and there’s a paper just
out a week ago by Ben Santer, Susan Solomon, Presidential Medal
of Science winner, a very austere team of climate scientists that
has shown that his claim of the observations not showing the
model predicted warming in the mid and upper troposphere is
largely an artifact, an artifact of the fact that he’s mixing in stratospheric
temperatures. The stratosphere actually cools. In global
warming, the lower part of the atmosphere including where we
live, the troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools. His satellite estimates
actually smear some of that cooling stratosphere into what
he’s calling the upper troposphere, and that’s the reason for the
discrepancy, and if he was right that it was warming less quickly
than the models predict, it would actually imply the opposite of
what he claimed earlier. It would imply a higher climate sensitivity
because it turns out that one of the negative feedback, one of the
ameliorating effects, so-called lapse rate feedback, would not be as
strong as we think it is, so it would actually mean that the climate
is even more sensitive to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Given that the paper published yesterday would have almost certainly have been written already when Dr Mann gave his testimony, I am finding it difficult to reconcile his testimony with his name being on the paper.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 21, 2017 7:04 am

Clarification of the paper:
Nature Geoscience (2017) doi:10.1038/ngeo2973
Received 23 December 2016 Accepted 22 May 2017 Published online 19 June 2017
I find it strange Dr. Mann didn’t mention any of this at the hearing, his argument then seems to be completely at odds with a paper with his name on it that was written and submitted to a journal for review 3 months earlier.

Gabro
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 21, 2017 12:46 pm

That’s because he’s an activist weasel, not a scientist.