Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects


  • 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

203 thoughts on “Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects

      • 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

    • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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?

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

    • 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.

      • 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…

      • 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.

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

  2. 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)…

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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.

    • 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”.

  6. 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!

  7. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

      • 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!

    • 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.

      • “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.

    • “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.

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

  9. 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.

      • 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.

  10. “… 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.

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

  11. 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.

  12. “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.”

    • 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.

    • 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.

  13. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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)
        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.

        • 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..

          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.

          • 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?

    • 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.

      • “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.

    • “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”’

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • “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?

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

    • 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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’

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. ‘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 ‘

    • 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.

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

  21. 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.

    • 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.

      • “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?

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    • “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.

      • 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.

  24. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

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

  28. 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.

    • 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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!

  32. 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 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.”
      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?

      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.

  33. If you can, do keep an eye on the Rossby waves that make up the jet stream. When they become rather convoluted as they are right now, thanks to Irma, we have silly weather differences.
    Snow in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming Nevada, and Utah is not unusual for this time of year and welcome since some of the communities near the snows depend on the snowpack for water.
    But in the Midwest, we should be seeing fall temperatures creep in, and thanks to Irma’s bad temper, we’re not. That old cow has pushed warm air up my way, and it’s annoying me. I don’t know whether to put my summer clothes away, or just keep everything out until we get some snow. It’s annoying me.
    I will have to sacrifice a wheel of brie, some crusty peasant bread and a bottle of Tuscan red to Shu, the Egyptian god of the atmosphere, and ask him to fix it.

    • The AhHa! moment arrived, when the alarmists realize they have oversold the doom and everyone has chosen to party in their remaining short time before the planet burns up. What to do? Quick, say we were wrong, that it’s not as serious as we thought, but it’s STILL REALLY serious and we know for sure this time what we are talking about. It may convince a few naive folks, but anyone who can really think will realize this is a desperate attempt to cover for the fact that their science never really existed and they oversold the whole doomsday-by-SUV idea. It screams of incompetence and desperation.

  34. Chuckle. Reminds me of the “Fusion Constant” joke among the nuclear energy crowd: Commercialization of fusion technology was always 20 years ahead!.

  35. The next stage after they admit that they were exaggerating the effects of CO2 is the stage when they admit that the effects of increased CO2 are actually beneficial to the planet, men, animals, and plants.

  36. How come he gets to use the inclusive “we” — do 97% of climate scientists agree with him? Why can’t a skeptical scientist use the inclusive “we”?

  37. Just saw this on the Climate Council (Tim Flannery’s outfit) website “……Climate Councillor and ecologist, Professor Lesley Hughes said Australia’s hottest winter in history was related to worsening climate change……”. “…..we will continue to see many more hot winters, just like this, as global temperatures rise…..”.
    Ah it was the hottest winter for Maximum Temperatures for a start and within the report we find it was the fifth warmest winter on average temperatures.
    The article then goes on to blame climate change and makes the normal fear mongering babble such as this gem – “……Climate Change made Australia’s warmest winter on record an astounding 60 times more likely……” (than what??? and please supply the calculation).
    Maybe Prof Grubb should stay clear of Prof Hughes lest they come to blows.

    • Try some actual data about some Australian capital cities. Officials claim our heat waves are longer, hotter and more frequent.
      Temperature data from the BOM does not support longer, hotter or more frequent in most instances studied here.
      Officials who claim hotter, longer, more frequent are simply not telling the truth.

  38. It seems to me that their estimates of ECS and TCR might still be a little too high.
    From the study:
    “We refer to ‘climate response’ as a specified combination of the TCR and ECS
    throughout this paper. Our median estimate climate response (TCR = 1.6 ◦C, ECS
    = 2.6 ◦C) is defined as the median of log-normal distributions consistent with
    IPCC-AR5 likely bounds on the TCR and ECS (TCR: 1.0–2.5 ◦C; ECS: 1.5–4.5 ◦C).
    From this, the likely above/below values are found from the 33rd and 67th
    percentiles of the distribution (TCR: 1.3–1.9 ◦C; ECS: 2.0–3.3 ◦C). The median TCR
    of this log-normal distribution is significantly lower than in the IPCC-AR5 ESM
    ensemble but is more consistent with observed warming to date than many
    ensemble members (see Supplementary Methods), indicative of the multiple lines
    of evidence used to derive the IPCC-AR5 uncertainty ranges. Although IPCC-AR5
    did not explicitly support a specific distribution, there is some theoretical
    justification50 for a log-normal distribution for a scaling parameter like the TCR.
    Reconciling the IPCC-AR5 best estimate of attributable warming trend over
    1951–2010 with the best-estimate effective radiative forcing requires a
    best-estimate TCR near to 1.6 ◦C under the simple climate model used here,
    consistent with a log-normal distribution. As a sensitivity study, we also assume a
    Gaussian distribution for the TCR (see Supplementary Methods) that raises the
    2015 attributable warming to 1.0 ◦C but only marginally affects the remaining
    carbon budget for a 1.5 ◦C warming above pre-industrial (the likely below budget is
    reduced to 240 GtC).”

  39. When I hear, among other things, that to keep the planet from warming 2C, the US would have to totally stop using fossil fuels by 2040, and that China and India would have to not only halt their emissions by 2020 but also immediately reverse them thereafter, I realize how improbable getting temperatures under control is in the first place. And that’s assuming these estimate are correct because it could easily be that the forces of nature are too powerful for any man-made efforts to influence regardless of what we do. The problem is that those who stand to profit by the global warming fight don’t want to face these realities.

  40. “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.”
    Gasp! No! Models wrong? Say it ain’t so! Who’d have thought it! No-one ever suggested such a thing before. Unimaginable. Etc.

  41. Looks like Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London is a climate change denier™.

  42. Just another end-of-the-world-cult looking for money, so the proclaimed we-are-doomed-day is postponed since they still want our money. A new postponement is lurking behind every new we-are-all-doomed-day, until there are no suckers left.

  43. Climate Scientists should learn from Yogi Berra:
    “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
    Here’s a prediction for you:
    • Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
    When climate scientists are strong enough to face the reality that they have been wrong, they should be allowed to “back out quietly…without having their professional careers ruined”.

  44. “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.”
    Too late. The world has already warmed by 1.5 C since 1750 and our climate is better now than in the Little Ice Age. Change your goal to emitting more CO2 to prevent another little ice age

  45. Of course the big logical problem with their admission is that if CO2 has less of an effect than previously thought then we can do even less to limit global warming than previously thought.
    I mean DEEERRP! Right?!!!

  46. The scariest part of global climate warming change is not the 1.5 degree temp increase. It’s the ease with which some people are willing to discard our freedoms. “Incompatible with democracy” Is an ominous sign of authoritarian power. I remember reading about one scientist calling outright for a “climate dictator.” And as history shows nothing could possibly go wrong with that!

  47. The people of the world should launch a class action lawsuit against these so called climate scientists who’s false scientific claims have cost humanity TRILLIONS of dollars of lost wealth!

    • I honestly and truly agree with your comments. But how would you prove how you personally lost income because of their lies? Therein lays the problem with the court where evidence must be presented.

      • Could be many ways to calculate. For one, my energy stocks have been lowered in value by every regulation/tax designed to fight CO2. Also, could take $$ spent divided by # of people in the country to see what it is costing each person. I know without a doubt, my wealth and standard of living has been negatively impacted by these people.

Comments are closed.