Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects

WE WERE WRONG, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CONCEDE

  • Ben Webster, The Times

Catastrophic impacts of climate change can still be avoided, according to scientists who have admitted they were too pessimistic about the chances of limiting global warming.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found.

New forecasts suggest that the world has a better chance than claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the necessary changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015:

“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

Professor Grubb said that the new assessment was good news for small island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

“Pacific islands are less doomed than we thought,” he said.

Professor Grubb added that other factors also pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore wind farms falling steeply in the UK.

He said:

“We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

The study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had actually occurred.

The global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said:

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean the world could afford to emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the current rate of emissions, this so-called “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years’ time.

Under the new assessment , the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said.

Full story h/t to The GWPF

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
rbabcock

Finally after years of predicting catastrophes and unspeakable horror not working… on to plan B.

Neo

I’m sorry. “Settled Science” has no room for a “Plan B”.

Bryan A

Mike Grubb makes his political beliefs clear in the first quote

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.
He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015:
“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

CO2 isn’t the boogey man…Democracy is
If delivering 1.5C is incompatible with Democracy, then it would also stand true (in his beliefs) that Democracy isn’t compatible with delivering 1.5C
Democracy must go

TimiBoy

Exactly.

The buffoons admit alarmist projections were off by more than 300% but assure us that their calculations are now reliable… There is no connection to reality- or sanity- in CO2-driven climate modeling.

Bryan A

There go the goal posts again

AndyG55

“There go the goal posts again”
They are trying to prepare for the cooling period that is coming.
So much egg on face, many, many omelettes

Pop Piasa

Keep their Grubby hands off the goalposts.

Sara

That loud thump you heard was me falling off my chair, laughing myself silly.
Someone please let me know when these control freaks are going to wake up and smell the burnt coffee? Thanks!!!

Sommer

What are the ramifications of this 300% error for the insurance industry that was cashing in on the alarmist projections? They were organized under the U.N.
http://www.unepfi.org/insurance/psi/

Ian Magness

Ahh, so let’s gloss over the “we’ve got n years to have the planet” statements from n++ years ago. We can now state categorically that we have another n squared years to save the planet. Phew! I’m sure they’ll be far more accurate this time. I’m glad they cleared that up.

Ron Long

That`s right Ian, even though the models failed miserably to predict reality, they have some fudge-factor that allows a correct adjustment, instantly, to make everything right on. We`re both glad they cleared that up. So now I suppose we don`t need the Political Scientists/Climate Modelers anymore? What?

noaaprogrammer

The goal posts can now be moved more years into the future to keep their alarmism and grant monies alive.

Sara

They’ll just push it further out when it doesn’t hit the goal post the next time.
I’d say that by the time the ice sheets are crunching their houses into rubble, they still won’t admit they’re completely off the mark.

John Miller

No, rather they will blame man for causing the growth of the glaciers and ice sheets -anthropogenic climate change being so much more complicated than we simple deniers could possibly contemplate…

Leonard Lane

Good comment Sara. Even if the ice is crunching their houses, they will still run around like Chicken Little screaming it is CO2 it it CO2 that’s causing the problem.

Sara

If they do that, Leonard, they should just their mouths sewn shut. In fact, that would solve the problem right now, wouldn’t it?

Next time it won’t be n-squared years. It will be n^n years…

We’re only up to three threads on this story. Such a monumental event certainly deserves five or six threads! Or just one George Carlin skit… (warning, lots of F-bombs)…

Thanks David.
Enjoyed that!

Paul Penrose

Plastic!

Sara

I miss people like George Carlin – a lot!

Sixto

The late, great, lamented Dr. Michael Crichton was a more polite, academic version of George Carlin.

Dr. Michael Crichton was brilliant. He wrote scientific fiction, rather than science fiction. Unfortunately, the AAPG decided to give him an award for State of Fear, a great novel… loaded with graphs. The backlash caused the political animals running the AAPG to disengage from the climate change debate and tone down the society’s position statement.

We were wrong, But don’t worry, er, keep worrying there’s is still a problem, but we have to limit to 1.5C now, not 2.0C, or we’re doomed. So, while models are worse than expected, we have to reduce the limit to keep my pay check, er climate of the world stable.
Thank You!

There, I fixed it.

David A

Yep, 10 years from now, we only have 20 years to prevent .25 degrees warming!!

They are throwing poor old james hansen and neil degrasse tyson under the bus?

Rob

While I say this only metaphorically, “Gee, I hope so!”

paul courtney

Not to mention our own N. Stokes, who has been showing charts and insisting models are NOT running hot vs. observations.

Peter Morris

Moving those goalposts again. Must be nice.

gnomish

maybe it’s the ‘bargaining stage’ …lol

Looks like I was late to the party on the stages of grief comment…

gnomish

nothing about grief-
threaten, bargain, suckerpunch
rinse and repeat for each generation.

Steve Keppel-Jones

Might as well just put ’em on wheels, they have to move ’em so much!

Tom Halla

This is more reminiscent of the old Gilda Radner Saturday Night Live character “Emily Litella”. Never mind!

Less doomed? Is that similar to The Princess Bride and Wesley being mostly dead?

David E Long

You beat me to it. I was going to say it’s like being a little bit pregnant.

Malcolm Carter

Gives you an idea of their mindset. “Less doomed” rather than ” not in immediate danger”.

Geoman

Okay.
I’ve been saying for, oh, 10 years now that climate sensitivity is likely close to zero, or perhaps even a small negative number. And without a high multiplier for climate sensitivity, the problem becomes a long term nuisance, rather than a global crises.
It appears I have been proven right.
What bothers me is this – The data was crystal clear 10 years ago that climate sensitivity was very low, if not negative. I sat down with a few basic measurements, the geologic record, and a calculator and figured it out. It wasn’t especially hard. Because I publically dared to state facts and logic I have endured endless verbal and written abuse and possibly damaged my professional career.
So? So what happens now? In a just world, the abusers and flim flam men who have led the hysteria would be tossed on the ash heap of history. Will they? More than likely they will be rewarded for their foresight, or at best, told they committed a sin of overenthusiasm. I mean, being extreme in defense of mother Earth is no crime, right?
No one will note the tremendous waste of time and money that went down the climate change drain, pocketed by these liars and thieves.

Nice post.

You have the gratitude of us all.

BCBill

That’s the beauty of consensus- no individual or small group can ever be held responsible.

TA

“No one will note the tremendous waste of time and money that went down the climate change drain, pocketed by these liars and thieves.”
I can’t agree with that. Someday there will be an accounting. We have wasted TRILLIONS of dollars on this CAGW boondoggle. That’s hard to overlook.

Bloke down the pub

Well they don’t want to put a deadline on when the money rolls in till, do they?

New money will throw cold water on existing claims. Gradually, if the “scientists” want money from the USA they will have to “review” their “mistakes”.

john harmsworth

Just back of the envelope stuff here, but I reckon zero warming X say 100 years means…..Nope! Can’t seem to do the math. I keep getting Zero Worries!

john harmsworth

Let’s use some direct languuge here. Leading scientist admits it was all just bullshit!

commieBob

We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, …

Something’s happening. It seems that nobody has wanted to build refineries for a while. link You’d think the Province of Alberta would build a refinery as a market for their heavy crude since they are having so much trouble getting it to tide water … but no … well maybe.

Catcracking

commieBob,
Alberta has refineries in Edmonton and they do refine some of the oil sands but the local market cannot use all the oil sands produces. It is easier to ship crude to the market and refine it there rather than ship all the different products. A lot of the heavy crude is already being refined somewhat and shipped to Aberta as light crude with sulfur removed. They know the economics, it is only he politicians who screw it up.

PiperPaul

Sulfur train passing through downtown Calgary.comment image

richard

I’m still waiting for the warming. Been a miserable summer where I am in the UK.

Doug

I live in WI and the 2 weekends at the lake in August were the coldest in my 30 years of memory. We wore jackets. No swimming or boating. It is most likely an anomaly, but what an awful August.

Dems B. Dcvrs

WI – nine months of great snowmobiling, and three months of not so great snowmobiling
/snark

Brian McCain

Remember the 4 seasons in WI: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter and Construction

noaaprogrammer

This morning snow levels were down to 4500-5000 feet in Oregon and Washington State. Cold air aloft was -26C.

Bryan A

Heard something similar about a certain Canadian Provence
There are four seasons…
Cold
Damn Cold
Still Cold
June 26th

Sara

Gee, no need for me to run the air conditioner for at least four years now, dropping my electric bill considerably. What’s to complain about? Northern Illinois with chilly summer weather is fine by me!

richardM

The certainty , despite this revealing insight, is galling re: 240 billion tons of CO2 can be emitted.

Trebla

240 billion tons of CO2. Three significant figures. Not “about 2-300 billion tons”, no, it’s 240 billion tons. Not 239 or 241. This guy is a scientist? He is implying a level of accuracy that is clearly not there given his initial prediction of 70 billion tons.
The first thing I was taught as a Chemist was to be careful with the figures you quote because they imply a level of accuracy or precision. And that is one of my biggest gripes with climate science. The implication that the results are accurate when they are dealing with a chaotic system. A simple admission of the uncertainty would gain my respect. After all, they are proposing a massive upheaval of the modern economic world.

Bryan A

But saying 240 billion tons +- 250 billion tons wouldn’t sound too good

TA

“The first thing I was taught as a Chemist was to be careful with the figures you quote because they imply a level of accuracy or precision. And that is one of my biggest gripes with climate science.”
I agree. The Alarmists are way too loose with numbers (because they have to be in order to push the CAGW narrative). They imply an accuracy and confidence that is not in evidence.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Tons or tonnes?

Mike Maguire

“The certainty , despite this revealing insight, is galling”
Was thinking the same thing richard M.
Reducing the sensitivity based on what has been increasingly obvious the past 15 years(when we heard that the science was settled and debate was over) is a good thing.
Keeping the “science is settled” frame of mind………very bad.
Will another 20 years of observations and studying help us to understand climate science even more……or, this time, we really do know enough and we know with certainty, that(unlike last time) what we don’t know is not much.
We certainly know much more than we did 20 years ago and learned MUCH more than we thought that we would learn during that time frame.
Is this the basis to assume that, because there is less to learn than before, the amount to yet learn is not still great?
One should actually be more scientifically humbled when shown to be WRONG about something and with a response more open minded and objective, with honestly about a confidence level in predicting something that you just busted the forecast on and are years late acknowledging……….. because of overconfidence in the first place.
It’s worse than we thought has backfired because that only works to motivate people short term…….. until they realize that its actually better than what you told them it would be based on the real world they live in.
Let’s give the guy a great deal of credit though for telling us it’s better than we thought. This is the truth. However, when people hear and/or embrace that truth and appreciate that its better than what they were told, it might cause them to respond to a less than predicted threat with a less inspirational call for actions.
Possibly, this brings them more in tune with reality and achievable goals vs hyped, catastrophic results and impossible goals that were always going to backfire when people realized the predictions were busted.
However, the treatment of Harvey and Irma shows how an atmosphere that holds 4% more moisture at 1 Deg. C warmer and an ocean that is +.5 Deg. C in the last 150 years, that can cause hurricanes to be slightly stronger……can be twisted into a perceived reality of being the cause of these events and/or certainly taking them to a new, unprecedented level because of human caused climate change.

David A

Not stronger yet. One year does not make a trend.

David A

Pacific is still having a calm year as well. The global increase in tropical storm strength or intensity is simply MIA.

Patrick MJD

“David A September 19, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Pacific is still having a calm year as well.”
It’s not called the Pacific for nothing y’know?

nn

Anthropogenic or natural climate change?
Modern scientists, or the journalists employed to publish, have developed (evolved?) an unfortunate habit of conflating domains, terms, concepts.

Sixto

I’m of two minds on this development.
1), Well, yeah! Duh! About time, but
2) Archalarmists necessarily claimed that it was already too late to do anything, so we were all doomed. But now the sc@m can be dragged out indefinitely.
Better just to admit that the second coming of the supposed warming is never, ever going to happen.

Maybe it will. Depends on the sun.

Trebla

Sort of like a desert mirage of an oasis. It’s always just over the next sand dune.

Sixto

I should have said won’t come again until after the current cooling cycle. If cycles average 30 years, then the late 20th century warming which began with the PDO shift in 1977 and ended during the so-called “Pause”, c. 2006, will be followed by cooling until c. 2036 and warming from c. 2037.
So “never, ever” overstates the case, but was meant to indicate in a time frame which could validate the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of CACA, ie the coming two decades. The Pause isn’t a pause in warming but the beginning of the early 21st century cooling cycle, interrupted by a natural ENSO swing.

John F. Hultquist

“… less doomed than we thought, …
“we” should be capitalized, as in the royal “we”, or majestic plural, – – We, meaning I.
As the phrase is written, ask who “we” might be?
Personally, We (meaning me) think Professor Michael Grubb is still clueless.

C.K. Moore

““… less doomed than we thought, … ”
His weasel-talk needs work. This is like saying “She’s not as pregnant as she thought.”

TDBraun

If the computer models are now admitted to be wrong a little bit, how do they know they are not wrong a lot more than that?
It’s like in accounting — if a company’s books are off by one dollar, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a one dollar error somewhere — it could mean there are dozens of million-dollar errors positive and negative which happen to total $1 when added up. Similarly, if a model simulation is known to be off by at least a little bit, it could mean it is riddled with many errors piled on top of each other, and can’t be trusted at all.

rocketscientist

“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
What exactly is meant by this?
Does that mean in a democracy of informed voters they can’t sell the bullshit?
Seems they’re losing “All of the people, some of the time.”
Well, at least they’ll convince “some of the people all of the time.”

John

Erm, I believe he thinks we need a non democratic form of World government. Basically, he is advocating some kind of anarchist dictatorship, in the interest of saving us all, because we are too dumb to do as ge says.
Yeah, interesting chap.

Tom in Florida

It means you cannot trust a free people to willingly hand over their money to these charlatans. They need to be forced to do it.

The main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done the rate of increase. Good news for solar, wind, hydro etc. which are not only taking on Big Oil but undercutting it.

Thomas Homer

The scourge in renewable energy use is having a huge impact indeed.

Eustace Cranch

the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done[sic] the rate of increase.
By the “surge” do you mean the replacement of 1% (or less) of fossil-fuel energy so far? That’s having a “huge” impact?
Yeah, pull the other one.

Ian W

It must be having an effect – look at all the windmills!!!
Just not the effect that the mathematically challenged virtue signalers thought they would have.

Big Oil is in for a bunch of law suits. Share prices will drop and investors will start to pull out, choosing to put their money into clean energy. It’s all just a matter of momentum. Andrew Sachs is right on the nail here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/climate-justice-is-coming-sachs/index.html

Sixto

Ivan,
That is a total fantasy, devoid of reality.
Without fossil fuels, there would be about seven billion fewer people on earth.

Sara

Wow. Ivankinsman’s delusional take on reality is so odd. All those twirling wind turbines that killed raptors caught in the turbine’s moving vortex, don’t count for anything. And all those twirling wind turbine farms that lost bunches of turbines to motor fires – really, really bad fires – in high windstorms must have escaped his notice.
I have fantasies, too. It’s just that mine are ore attainable than Ivankinsman’s perfect world.

Trebla

Yeah, right with a massive 2.6% of the worlds energy needs satisfied by wind, solar and biomass in 2016. Wow!!

Give it a chance my friend. The electric vehicle showing similar stats

… but that is going to be changing big time over the next decade. Same with green energy – just wait and see.

Tom Halla

The green blob has been making predictions for all my adult life, forty plus years. They are quite reliable in being wrong.

David A

Ivan says. ” … but that is going to be changing big time over the next decade. Same with green energy – just wait and see.,
But Ivan, you spoke in current tense about having a big affect now.
WUWT?

Gary Pearse

Ivan, you can run an electric car on power from coal or gas. I note the greens are accepting hydro to fatten the picture after half a century of vilification. Nuclear is even becoming respectable. Soon, to obfuscate, they will divide energy provenance into fossil fuel and non fossil fuel. That will fatten the green ledger, even though most of it will be nuclear as fossil fuels eventually do peak later this century. This isn’t even a prediction. Power from the atom is a no brainer.

Why I like debating with the sceptic community is that it forces me to look for the evidence that counteracts some of their statements that they are too lazy to research for themselves.
Here is see “a massive 2.6% of the world’s energy” which is nothing but a blatant lie.
“For 2010, the share of renewable energy in the global energy consumption was estimated at around 16.7 percent (… Within the European Union, renewable energy had a 24.3 percent share of the total energy produced from all sources)
Source: https://www.business.com/articles/the-impact-of-green-energy-on-the-economy/
In terms of future energy scenarios, many commentators have been again too lazy to check this out for themselves, going with the old mantra “fossils fuels good, renewable energy bad”. Here is an OECD report that shows how renewable energy is set to take a larger share of the global energy market – the relevant pages are 15-19, and I am running with the ‘450 Scenario’.
Summary of the report:
Global demand for energy is increasing rapidly, because of population and economic growth, especially in
emerging market economies. While accompanied by greater prosperity, rising demand creates new challenges.
Energy security concerns can emerge as more consumers require ever more energy resources. And higher
consumption of fossil fuels leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), which
contribute to global warming. At the same time, the number of people without access to electricity remains
unacceptably high.
But such challenges can create opportunities. A sustainable energy future will require new thinking and new
systems – essentially a transformation in the way we produce, deliver and consume energy. If our goal is to raise
living standards, provide access to modern energy services, use energy more efficiently, protect the global
environment and ensure reliable energy supplies, green growth must play a key role.
The OECD and IEA are actively supporting the transition to a greener model of growth. At its 50th
Anniversary Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2011, the OECD launched a Green Growth Strategy to help
policy makers and stakeholders to address the major environmental challenges of today’s world, while expanding
economic opportunities. The Strategy encompasses both policy recommendations to make economic growth
“greener” and a set of indicators to monitor progress towards green growth. The Strategy is first and foremost about
implementing change and achieving a common purpose: a world that is stronger, cleaner, and fairer.
This report highlights the challenges facing energy producers and users, and how they can be addressed using
green growth policies. Because energy underlies the global economy, the decisions made today in the energy sector
will be critical to achieving greener growth. We have a window of opportunity for establishing a policy framework
to enable transformational change in the energy sector, including by facilitating technological innovation and the
creation of new markets and industries, to reduce the sector’s carbon-intensity and to improve energy efficiency.
Source: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-energy/49157219.pdf

Why I like debating with the sceptic community is that it forces me to look for the evidence that counteracts some of their statements that they are too lazy to research for themselves.

Here you like a challenge, water vapor controls cooling. Co2 change is irrelevant, water vapor just compensates. It’s why the models, which are programmed to warm with increasing co2 are a failure..
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
The GHG effect is just a light noncondensing background flux, plus the large varying daily water cycle. Air and ground store energy during the day. At dusk the cooling rate is very high, but it includes all the noncondensing ghg, and some from water vapor. But once it’s cooled near dew point the amount of water vapor in the atm that condenses/re-evaporates increases, and a lot more water vapor starts radiating, this latent heat, is the source of a large flux 35W/m^2 increase in GHG emmission at the surface in this example. In the chart in the link it’s the net rad that shows this.
But, it only starts after any excess warming has radiated to space, nullifying most to all excess warming.
But I don’t think you’ll get it. Not many do, but it is what’s controlling climate, and it’s driven by the ocean cycles.

If the IPCC gives this some credence then so will I, but it seems it hasn’t.

Why would they? It’s never been about science to at least some of them. It’s redistribution of wealth.
But why is it that you can’t understand the science I present. If you did, you’d see I was right, physics demands it.
But what about liking to show us how we’re wrong?

Bruce Cobb

Of course, that is utter nonsense. The only thing the scourge of renewable energy use has done, or ever will do is raise the cost of energy, in addition to being a blight on the landscape, amongst other environmental insults.

Think I would prefer to see some nice gleaming wind turbines and live near them than a filthy oil refinery polluting the atmosphere in the local neighbourhood.
Start looking out for the law suits against the Big Oil companies seeking compensation for AGW. Investors will start running for the hills.

AndyG55

“Start looking out for the law suits against the Big Oil companies seeking compensation for AGW.”
And start looking at these cases being LAUGHED OUT OF COURT !
The AGW scam ONLY exists in un-validated junk models.
Produce a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Waiting

Dems B. Dcvrs

“main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases”
Good One! Thanks for snicker.
Nice toss in of ”’potential”’

Joel Snider

So – while C02 levels were soaring over the last two decades – a time frame predominantly, dominated by ‘The Pause’ – your ‘renewables’ were forcing back Climate Change?
You’d have to be kind of an idiot to buy that one… but Yeah, that’s what they’re trying to sell.
Of course, the primary rule of selling anything is that the mark wants to be sold.
This is simply more damage control now that it’s fairly unequivocal that the models have been demonstrably wrong.
And they’re changing their story.
Again.

Joel, to get the true facts about this so-called ‘Pause’ that I know likes to be quoted by many sceptics, here are the true facts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4896046/The-slowdown-global-warming-warns-Met-Office.html

Sixto

Ivan,
That is their assertion. There is no actual evidence that the tiny amount of power generated by “renewables” has had any effect whatsoever on global average temperature.
Pollution from Indian and Chinese coal plants has undoubtedly lowered global temperatures much more than all the renewable energy bird and bat murdering, environment destroying facilities on earth.

Sixto that is complete rubbish and you know it in your heart. You’ve got to get of the 19th and 20th century mindset that our civilisation is dependent on fossil fuels. First the internal combustion engine is going to disappear and green energy is going to play a much bigger role in the energy mix.

johchi7

Liberal logic: twisting or spining the truth or facts to fit their ideologies and narrative to push their agendas when the opposite is apparent.

Check this out. If you were living in the country where water is a scarce resource I think you would have a very different perspective my friend …
http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/14/water-management-at-the-heart-of-cop22-climate-change-discussions

AndyG55

Poor Ivan.. ….. did you know that YOU and EVERYTHING YOU DO, is totally reliant on fossil fuels ?

AndyG55

The civilised world CANNOT function without fossil fuels.
And it CERTAINLY functions better WITHOUT unreliables.

Sixto, you need to take a look at what is going on around the world in terms of renewables instead of thinking just about the US scenario.
Here is the perspective from India:
http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/videos/renewables-to-account-for-entire-new-power-capacity-in-10-yrs-ajay-mathur-dg-teri/58031325
And here is the perspective from China:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/18/technology/china-us-clean-energy-solar-farm/index.html

Geoff Sherrington

Ivankinsman,
It becomes easier to see if you regard reliable coal based electricity supply as a requirement of contemporary Life. Another is clothing. Clothing is carbon-intensive and wasteful, but for a variety of reasons, we have come to expect it to be there to use. Just like electricity.
We have activism trying to tax the air we breathe. In 1975 I wrote an opinion piece about how silly it was to go green, with the ultimate prospect of a quite stupid proposal to tax our air, like how ratty can you get? Then years later it happened, at least as a demand.
One year in the future, activists might make a case to ban clothing because of its carbon footprint, but until now we tolerate it. And we tolerate coal powered electricity. Same argument. Same hopes for the future.
The future would be much more nice if we cut back on green propaganda.
Geoff.

Sara

No windmills within several hundred miles of my domicile, Ivankinsman. No solar panels, either, but somehow, my electric bill has dropped at least 10%. No renewables were used in the reduction of my monthly power bill.

Patrick MJD

“ivankinsman
September 19, 2017 at 10:09 am
The main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done the rate of increase.”
Huge impact on *potential* increase but slowing down the rate of increase at the same time? You talk rubbish!

Let me put is as an equation for you:
A per annum increase in renewable energies uptake = a per annum reduction in the rate of increase of atmospheric temperatures.
Got it?

clipe

The main thrust of this article is:
Oh Bugger! We’ve been Trumped.

I think the British Prime Minister agrees with you. He cannot even keep his own close allies on side when it comes to climate change. This just shows the huge gap between Europe and the US on this issue – and I am a European:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/theresa-may-speaks-out-against-trump-climate-change-stance-at-un

Latitude

well….look on the bright side
At least they admitted they don’t know crap and have been lying all these decades

gnomish

4 Eyes

One guy has said he was the wrong. He hasn’t admitted to knowing nothing and he certainly hasn’t said he was lying. “they” meaning all of them minus 1 are still deathly silent and admitting nothing. Most of “they” will slip away quietly and beg for grants on some other potential cash cow. And no-one will be held responsible.

D. J. Hawkins

This goes beyond sheepishly admitting they overstated their case previously. They go so overheated that they were finally singing “We’re all gonna die! and there’s nothing to be done”. Wait, nothing to be done? Well good we can stop worrying and ignore you. “Wait, no, that’s not what I meant! I mean, look there’s still a chance to save the world, pleeeeeeease pay attention to me!”
That’s what we have here.

Sara

You left out the part about ‘give me yer money’ , D. J. Hawkins.

David E Long

Translation: “You still have time to do what I say.”

Dems B. Dcvrs

Translation: You still have time to go Green (and fill our pockets with cash).

Fred Brohn

THERE IS STILL TIME ……….BROTHER

Sixto

No surprise that this story isn’t getting any ink, while this one is:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-apos-scandal-apos-rep-204158786.html

gnomish

yahoo = huffpo

Sixto

Also CNN. The Yahoo article is based upon Tyson’s interview with CNN’s usual liberal suspect Fareed Zakaria.

Bruce Cobb

What I notice is that they use pre-industrial, i.e. during the LIA as their baseline. How convenient.

TonyN

I suggest that an archive is now made, and republished on a regular basis, of the more egregious prognostications by named individuals and their institutions. Otherwise there will be a great, deliberate ‘forgetting’

4 Eyes

I agree. A big list is required.

Sara

Agreed, an archival list that is both hard copy and online is necessary, and something they can’t hack into.

Solomon Green

This morning on the BBC Today program Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, was asked if, in the light of what has now been found, the models would be corrected.
He said that they would be corrected.
He explained that, instead of assuming that the temperature increase to date had been 1.3o C, as the models had predicted as recently as the mid 2000s, they would now use the revised figure of 1.00 C.
The interviewer forgot to ask him why they would continue to use the same models whose predictions had been falsified by observation.

4 Eyes

The interviewer didn’t forget. He had no idea what questions to ask.

David A

…all the while ignoring troposphere T has warmed considerably less, and was suppose to warm more. Egads, the models are worse then we thought.

Another Scott

We didn’t lie…we exaggerated….

johchi7

Stating their predictions were wrong should be evidents that the effects of Carbon Dioxide increase are not what they made them out to be….but, they refuse to tell the truth by admitting that in how they present it. The connon person will not read this article and understand that perspective. How many gt of CO2 have been increased into the environment over the last 2 decades making green energy devices, that take many more year’s to pay back their CO2 pumped into the environment? The perspective of adding more CO2 now to reduce future CO2 has been ludicrous when they stated down that path. How they say it’s to reduce CO2 when the opposite is true and all that added CO2 has not caused the warming as predicted.

knr

‘heads I win , tails you lose ‘ classic climate ‘science’
it really did not matter what was done or not done , for no matter what happen it would be held up as ‘proof’ of AGW and of course they retain the ability to say ‘but it will get worse , doom , oh , doom ‘

johchi7

And to me it sounded like it was giving us permission with more time to pump more CO2 into the environment before it reaches a lower temperature (1.5 as to 2.0) to reach before the disaster has to be addressed.

Bartemis

Like all doomsday cults – just keep pushing the day of reckoning farther out when the cataclysm fails to materialize in the time previously allotted.

Nigel S
willhaas

The computer simulations of climate have been of no value because they hard coded in that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. This begs the question.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases that have LWIR absorption bands. One problem with that concept is that good absorbers are also good radiators so the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy any more than all the other gases in the atmosphere. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of a radiant greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. Same too on Earth where gravity limits cooling by convection. From first principals the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average, 33 degrees C warmer then if it were at the black body radiator equilibirum temperature. 33 degrees C is the derived amount and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Additional warming caused by a rediant greenhouse effect has not been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
We have to learn to live with the reality that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.

Brad Schrag

You are correct that a good absorber is a good radiator. However, emission is based on the temperature of the radiator. So radiation absorbed at higher levels is emitted at a lower rate than it is absorbed. This emission goes in all directions, both towards and away from the surface. So while it is accurate the a=e for a particular lambda, it would be wrong to imply that amount of absorption= amount of emission for a particular body, or level in the atmosphere.

Bartemis

“So radiation absorbed at higher levels is emitted at a lower rate than it is absorbed.”
I think that is a bit garbled, as it does not make much sense in its present form. Could you reiterate?

Brad Schrag

Sorry, only a few hours of sleep last night. Radiation absorbed at higher elevations is emitted at lower rates than absorption because its temperature is lower.

Bartemis

Would that not result in a net imbalance in stored energy that would eventually reach a level to tear the molecules apart?

willhaas

In the troposphere heat energy transport is dominated by a combination of conduction, convection, and by H2O phase change. LWIR absorption band heat energy transfer makes little difference. Actually it is the non-greenhouses gases that are apt to hold onto heat energy longer because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space.

Bartemis

“Actually it is the non-greenhouses gases that are apt to hold onto heat energy longer because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space.”
Which is why introducing additional good LWIR radiators into the mix, which can be thermalized and radiate the heat away, can have a cooling impact.

Brad Schrag

Gases won’t radiate heat away. You are only guaranteed radiation up toward the atmosphere from the surface. Radiation from gases will go in any direction. If you were to split the atmosphere up into distinct thin layers and Lon at the up/down admittance at each boundary you would get that each layer radiates 50% up, 50% down. So will gases radiate energy away, I suppose so. But they also radiate energy back to the lower layers and surface.

Pierre DM

the waterme1on’s don’t change. I see this a some sort of agreed too flanking move to put pressure on Trump to stay in the Paris accords. Remember they still control the data output for temps. If every country started to participate in the wea1th redistribushun and destruction of society they would slowly reverse the warming bias and claim victory. A flanking move is better than backing one’s self into a corner.

Sixto

Divert a little bit from observations? As in temperature not warming up as opposed to rapid warming? That’s a pretty big divergence, in my book.

Tom in Florida

“it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”
Yeah, it’s like saying the Pope and Galileo had a little bit of a disagreement.

Sixto

Yup!
Pope: Earth doesn’t move, but lies at rest near the center of the universe, with everything else revolving around it, according to the Ptolemaic model which Holy Mother Church has adopted.
GG: Earth moves around the sun, while rotating daily and wobbling on its axis.
IPCC: Earth’s temperature is rapidly and dangerously warming, and is sure to keep doing so, as shown by our models.
Mother Nature: Earth’s temperature hasn’t warmed for about 20 years, except for brief ENSO fluctuations, contrary to your models.

This is what the start of the walkback looks like. We get incremental adjustments in the predictions, but no admission that the fundamentals are rotten, and no apologies for having misdirected billions of people and trillions of dollars.

Paul Penrose

Exactly.

TA

+97

Sara

Someone suggested an archive of their silly predictions, something they can’t hack into and change. It’s a necessity, especially when they will try to insist some time from now that they had always said “XX degrees C”.
I’m waiting for the snowflakes who get this news to absorb it and melt into puddles of tears over it.

Sceptical lefty

Indeed! This is preparing the ground for a strategic retreat.
In 50 years’ time, when all who could be held accountable are safely dead, officially-sanctioned historians may point out what a boondoggle this business was. There will be a round of self-congratulatory backslapping while everyone agrees that something like that could never happen again. But … it will.

RockribbedTrumpkin

Since they declared victory over man made warming let’s agree that 2% renewables is just right

flynn

FTW

TA

2 percent is WAY too much. That 2 percent will kill million of animals.

Michael Carter

According to my research renewables’ contribution to reduced CO2 emissions remains zero. The logistics of mining special materials, manufacture, transport, instillation and maintenance, more than gobbles up any advantage.
As for electric cars: where does the energy come from to cope with the elevated demand during peak charging times? Every factory car park and inner city will need charging stations to avoid peak demand at night.
In the end economics will rule. There is a currently a glut of LNG. Floating storage is being manufactured to install close to any country that wants it. Africa is the main target as it could benefit hugely from this resource.

eyesonu

I don’t mean to explicitly say that the rats are now jumping ship and saying that they want a lifeline to the wharf. But those same rats chewed a hole in the side that caused it to sink. No quarter to be given.

South River Independent

This reminds me of the old (ineffective) trick of walking backwards to make others think you are not trying to escape!!

Merovign

Welp, it’s sad, but they’re just going to have to be jailed for “harming the future” now. Goose and gander and all that.

How long before these authors are labeled deniers?

Sara

Andrew, you could have posted a spew alert before you added that!
They’ll be castigated by the Snowflake True Believers, who will rally behind their Mann (pun intended) to the very end. I hope they enjoy shoveling 4 feet of snow away from their apartment building doors.

Only two scientists who are saying “it’s not quite so bad, but it’s still baaad (send more money).”
We still need the fat lady to sing …

Sixto

The fat lady being the IPCC and relevant national science associations.

London247

The problem is that if the rate of warming decreases then the AGW crowd will claim it is because ot the measures implemented rather then natural variation. Heads they win, tails they win despite AGW is a con.

Catcracking

At least I give them some credit for admitting what has been obvious to many of us, but should there not be consequences for those who have been screaming so loud and demanding suicidal measures ?
We knew the climate change models were wrong as they over predicted warming by large margins yet they clung onto them foolishly.
Can we shut down the D level Scientist, Al Gore, please.
Anyone who believes them now is a fool.
How about all those economies and people they caused hardship by mandating costly unreliable green energy.

John Fleming

“… less doomed than we thought, … ”
Please Sir….
Can we have our money back?

Brad Grubel

It’s worse than we thought! We’re not as doomed as we thought so everybody will ignore us and we’re all really doomed now!

Amber

Can’t wait to see the next IPCC report , If there ever is one again . Guaranteed the top ring leaders of the climate has a fever fraud won’t be drafting wording to fit the political objective of the criminals behind the biggest frauds in history . People are hip to their tricks and can’t wait to jail those con men .

A great article here by the NYT looking into everything connected to climate change. Good bedtime reading for the sceptic community. Get back to me or the NYT with any questions you may have:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html?emc=edit_clim_20170919&nl=&nlid=78479759&te=1&_r=0

Sixto

A pack of baseless assertions, not backed up by even a scrap of science. Is there the source of your antiscientific, antihuman, unwarranted opinions? The NYT? Why am I not surprised?

MrGrimNasty

Ivankinsman – the fact that you are even allowed to post such contrary opinion/garbage here – from a fanatical CAGW supporting source – says it all – one side is tolerant reasonable open and honest in search of the truth, and CAGW proponents are not.

Bartemis

1. Climate change? Global
warming? What do we call it?

Call it misdirection, as it was invoked to hide the fact that the temperatures were diverging from the models.
2. How much is the Earth heating up?
Few reject the evidence that the planet warmed last century. The questions are, is it bad, are we at fault, and can we do anything about it? The answers are no, no, and no.
3. What is the greenhouse effect, and
how does it cause global warming?
In the 19th century, scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that would otherwise escape to space.

False. In the 19th century, it was observed that certain gases absorb in the IR. Beyond that, it was conjectured that their presence in the atmosphere would heat the planet beyond what it otherwise would have been, and the available evidence seems consistent with that conjecture. But, incremental sensitivity to specific quantities is still up in the air, so to speak.
“…the Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.”
False.
4. How do we know humans
are responsible for the
increase in carbon dioxide?

We aren’t, and the purported evidence is all post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is impossible to proportionately affect a balance by a greater amount than one’s proportionate addition to the input that establishes the balance, and our proportionate addition is small.
5. Could natural factors be
the cause of the warming?

Yep.
6. Why do people deny the
science of climate change?

They observe that the Earth is not warming consistently with the models.
7. How much trouble are we in?
Big trouble, if the statists succeed in driving us into poverty and curtailing civil liberties in the name of a nonexistent peril.
8. How much should I worry about
climate change affecting me directly?

Only insofar as the above power grab succeeds.
9. How much will the seas rise?
Negligibly in your lifetime, your childrens’ lifetimes, and their childrens’ lifetimes.
10. Is recent crazy weather
tied to climate change?

No. The weather has always been “crazy”.
11. Are there any realistic
solutions to the problem?

No, as the existence of a problem is necessary for it to be solved.
12. What is the Paris Agreement?
A worthless agreement that would hardly make a dent in the problem, if it existed, but would make us all significantly poorer for no reason.
13. Does clean energy help
or hurt the economy?

It is a misallocation of resources with huge opportunity costs that drags the economy down.
14. What about fracking or ‘clean coal’?”
Be thankful that we are blessed with abundant energy resources.
15. What’s the latest with electric cars?
Still extra-expensive with limited battery life. Still limited range. Still not suitable for extra-cold or extra-hot environments. Still sources of major pollution from mining, processing, and disposal of heavy metals, and energy intensive manufacture.
16. What are carbon taxes, carbon
trading and carbon offsets?

Scams for the well-meaning but gullible.
17. What can
I personally do about it?

Not a thing.

AndyG55

14. Clean coal..
Yes a bit dusty when being mined.. wear respirators.
At combustion, the major by-product is a highly beneficial gas, CO2, which supports ALL LIFE ON EARTH
Minor pollutants are continually being reduced.
Coal and gas are probably the CLEANEST and MOST BENEFICIAL energy sources on the planet.

I will address point 12 directly. The Paris climate accord one of the best agreements evet made on this planet, and its implementation is now inevitable. Strange that one of the over 200 signatory countries has chosen to follow the US’s exit – I wonder why …
http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/18/action-on-climate-change-is-an-urgent-duty-cop22-delegates

should read: ‘… not one of the over 200 signatory countries …

Now, which stage of grief is bargaining?