Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

The Daily Mail reports:

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

Read more…

7 thoughts on “Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong”

  1. Despite the incontrovertible evidence showing no temperature rise for 17years plus coupled with record volumes of arctic ice the warmists are still kicking and screaming like a bunch of kindergarten kiddies (and that’s not being overly kind about the real kiddies)

  2. I think it is record volumes of Antarctic ice. The arctic, while growing compared to last year, only has as much ice as about 2002. It was much bigger in the 1970s

  3. IPCC Next Report:
    1. We were wrong about the sensitivity of the climate to changes in CO2 and other atmospheric components.
    2. We were wrong about the changes in temperatures.
    3. We were wrong about what changes in temperatures would mean because there’s no discernible correlation between the years that were warmer than average and the occurrence of “extreme” weather events.
    4. We were wrong about the various natural forcings in the climate/weather systems, most of which we’re still discovering.
    Conclusion: So you should take our advice to sacrifice much of the advantage of modern technology, you should push a lot of middle-class and lower-class people into energy poverty, and you should make sure the really poor stay that way.

  4. This refers to the work of Dr. Fyfe.

    Fyfe et al isn’t a refutation of the IPCC. It is
    just one paper that shows that the global surface air temperature has
    recently been rising at the lower limit of expectations.

    Climate scientists and the IPCC have
    consistently said that you need to average over 30-year periods for the
    global surface air temperature to reflect the climate (as opposed to the
    weather). Fyfe et al are looking at 20 years of data, which isn’t
    enough for the short-term fluctuations to even out.

    We expect to see periods of a decade or more when the rate of warming is a bit low – we just happen to be in one of those periods now.

    The easiest way to understand this is to look at this graph:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    One expert commented:

    “[Fyfe et al] hinges on the cherry picking of dates. 1998 was an
    exceptional year. If one does the reverse and take 1975 to 1998 the
    warming is larger than nearly every model predicts. From 1998 on it
    is lower. From 1975 to present it is just right. So one major blip:
    an exceptionally warm year can really distort messages if it is cherry
    picked.”

  5. That’s because the climatologists used that 30 year trend to make their models. They made their predictive models based on then recent trending. The whole point is that 30 year span may or may not represent anything in the long run. And the warmists are sure quick to say that the last 15 years don’t represent anything. And before that we had a 30 year cooling trend that followed a 50 year warming trend.
    The only thing I can get from this is that warmists say when the temp record goes upward that is an indication of global warming. But when it stays constant or goes down, it is natural fluctuation. I think that’s a rather covenient argument. And if you want to go long term trending, indications are that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age, 350 years ago. The Industrial Revolution started 100 years after that. And top it off, you have to go to proxy data and interpret temps more than 120 years ago, so nothings certain. And that’s just in the northern hemisphere, and more specifically Europe and America. For much of the rest of the world, there’s not actual temp data more than 50 years old. And satellite and oceanographic data is constantly being tweaked, because scientists are not exactly sure how that data corresponds to weather station data.
    That’s a lot of ups and downs unpredicted in modeling. Again, when you want us to cripple economies and give up modern conveniences and lower standards of living, you better have your data s**t together. So far the prediction business has been a joke.

Comments are closed.