Bad for warmism: In-the-tank BBC asks ‘Why has global warming stalled?’

BBC science editor David Shukman reports:

With Britain’s heatwave reaching a peak, there could be no better moment to talk about why global warming has slowed to a standstill…

What if the climate models – which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% – so “the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years”.

Overall, it concludes, the pause “does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing – especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.

10 thoughts on “Bad for warmism: In-the-tank BBC asks ‘Why has global warming stalled?’”

  1. If you believe the article about thermal energy being concentrated in the “deep ocean,” I have a hundred bridges to sell you. If this were true, the mean sea level measurements of the world would be accelerating significantly, but for the first time in more than a century, the sea level elevations have been decelerating. If you don’t believe this, it is supported by satellite measurements and peer reviewed articles and can easily be seen by a casual look at the primary data by NOAA available easily on line. Why are there so many computer models that are all erroneous? It is because the hypothesis that our global temperatures are determined by the CO2 level is fundamentally flawed.

  2. The pause in the on coming Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming is the result of an evil plot by we skeptics to destroy the reputation of the CAGW crowd. We have our hands on the real temperature control knob and are intentionally turning it to counter the previous warming that is hiding in places only we know. We control the depths of the ocean, we control the ice caps, and we control the sun. There is nothing that the CAGW crowd can do about it but make their predictions which we slowly turn into meaningless mush. Thereby utterly destroying them and their precious reputation of infallibility.

    Alternatively, climate stuff just happens and all we can do is try to predict and adapt. Neither side has control over anything but the words they publish and the actions they take as a consequence of those words. The consequences of those actions? The activation of a cause will achieve its own end without respect to our or their best intentions. In the end, stuff happens and we must adapt or die.

  3. If the warmists were in a tug-of-war with an immovable object they would think they were winning if the rope stretched.

  4. Ah! Another Met Office briefing document – so now we know with a high statistical probability based on the MO’s past performance that things are going to get much cooler over the decades to come.

    Remember the barbeque summers of a few years ago? The drought warnings followed by a hundred years flood? This year they even told us to expect wet summers for the next decade so thankful for the Met Office’s advice we got a barbie and could have used it almost everyday for the last two months in the biggest heat wave in many years.

    The only thing worse than Met Office forecasts are Met Office Marine forecasts. “It will come in as a “five” in the North Sea by the early hours”. Thankfull for this advice and mindfull of the huge funnel cloud over Aberdeen I got out the backstay sail and storm jib as it came in as a ten. The waves were higher than my yacht was long. Sometimes I think they should take their noses off their supercomputer screens and just look out of the window.

  5. It was expected to last 0+/-3 days. Now, if it lasts another 10 years, it will certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be considered longer than expected.

  6. “…especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.”
    The pause was expected?

  7. They have a theory, now they are trying to force the climate to fit their theory. Talk about a losing proposition. How about taking observations, current and historical, and try to develop a theory to fit the legitimate data.

  8. Right you are, Geoff. That sounds like a Vicky Pollard quote. British satire actually affords a very accurate depiction of real life in the Queendom.

  9. If I understood this statement, “We were wrong, but we’re actually right, so do what we say because shut up.” Am I about right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.