Advertisements

THE SUN : Climate Control Knob, Enemy Of The Climate Cult

THE SUN and Planets 2000px-Planets2013

THE Sun is 4.6 billion years old.

THE Sun has surface area is 11,990 times that of the Earth’s. Its diameter is around 1,392,000 kilometres (865,000 miles), about 110 times wider than Earth’s.

THE mass of the Sun is approximately 330,000 times greater than that of Earth. You can fit 1.3 million earths into it.

THE Sun contains 99.86% of the mass in the Solar System.

THE Sun generates huge amounts of energy by combining hydrogen nuclei into helium. This process is called nuclear fusion.

THE Sun’s surface temperature is ‎5,500 °C.

THE Sun’s core is around 13600000 degrees Celsius.

LIGHT from the Sun reaches Earth in 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

THE Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis are caused by the interaction of solar winds with Earth’s atmosphere. The solar wind is contains charged particles such as electrons and protons. They escape the Sun’s intense gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the Sun’s corona (a type of plasma atmosphere that extends into space).

*

ALL that power and life-sustaining magnificence! And yet, the Sun is completely dismissed as a key driver of climate by the climate crisis industry. Why? Because, you cannot control the Sun, therefore you would be laughed out of town if you tried to tax voters for climate changes or weather extremes caused by the Sun.

THEREFORE, your lifestyle and emissions are to blame – CO2 the patsy – tax away and obey!

“Scientists now claim that a 0.0001 mole fraction increase in CO2 over the past century controls the climate.  This is because the Sun can’t be controlled, scientists can’t pretend they know how to prevent bad weather, and politicians can’t use sunspots as an excuse to raise taxes and control energy policy.” – Tony Heller

*

CLIMATE alarmist outfit Union Of Concerned Scientists recognises the Sun as a key driver of climate only up until the late 1970’s, before politics, ideology, power and control entered the ‘science’ of climate. The late 1970’s also corresponds nicely with a cyclical rise in global temps following the well-catalogued 70’s “global cooling” scare :

“Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages).  However, changes in the rate of solar heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s.” – Union Of Concerned Scientists

BIAS BY OMISSION

WHAT the “Union Of Concerned Scientists” won’t show you is that there have been similar warming periods of equal magnitude before the era of ‘human emissions’…

THE 2013 UN IPCC report claimed with at least 95 percent certainty that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

“Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.”

Experts surer of manmade global warming but local … | Reuters

IDENTICAL WARMING TRENDS

THE 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:

  1. Which side is which time period?
  2. What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
  3. How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

The Pause Has Returned.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

from 2001

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001

Hadcrut now have numbers out for February, giving an anomaly of 0.523C, measured against the 1961-90 baseline, slightly down on January’s 0.556C.

This means that the last six months have been below 0.59C.

It is clear that temperatures are settling down at a similar level to the period between 2002 and 2007, following the record El Nino of 2015/16. Bear in mind as well that the degree of accuracy, according to the Hadley Centre, is about +/-0.1C. As such, it cannot be said that there has been any statistically measurable warming since 2001, or indeed previously.

It is possible temperatures may drop further in coming months, with weak La Nina conditions established, although these are predicted to disappear by the summer.

Satellite measurements from UAH also show a similar picture:

from 2001

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001

View original post


“THE PAUSE” Lives On : Global Temperatures Continue To Cool Despite Record And Rising CO2 Emissions

 

GLOBAL temps continue their cooling trend, rebounding off the 2015/16 Super El Niño – the strongest since accurate measurements began, caused by surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, west of Central America rising up to 3C warmer than usual.

THE latest UAH V6.0 February anomaly of +0.20 brings temperatures back to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Niño.

UAH Feb data and results here…

*

MEASURING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES – Satellites Vs Thermometers?

satellite-v-thermometer-628x353.png

Satellites

NASA’s MSU satellite measurement systems, generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur.

BEFORE 2016, UAH and RSS both tracked closely showing very little warming in their data sets which led to the identification and validation of “the pause” in global warming which has since become the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

From the RSS website:

HOWEVER, by 2016, Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and who has used the pejorative “denialist” in various correspondence, decided that “the pause” was not a good look for the global warming narrative so RSS was massively adjusted upwards, conveniently eliminating “the pause” in the RSS dataset.

Mears’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website:

MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.

Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

THE result…
Differences between the old version and new version of RSS:

 

 

(Data and research via WUWT)

*

UAH is the satellite data set featured in this post and is jointly run by Dr. John R. Christy –  Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. And Roy Spencer Ph.D. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Spencer commentary on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:

“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.

The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.

Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

And that is the most important point to be made.”

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

(Climatism bolds)

*

Thermometers

THIS epic twitter conversation between NASA GISS’ chief climate commissar Gavin Schmidt and @7Kiwi captured an epic admission as to the spurious nature of the highly upwardly ‘adjusted’ NASA land-ocean temperature data set, that leads to the huge and widely recognised divergence between satellite observations, climate models and NASA’s GISS temp…

 

A translation (square brackets) of Gavin’s admissions just for fun . Though many truths in it…

NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record

More info on NASA GISTEMP: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

*

IT’S not difficult to see why the NASA data set is the preferred go-to for global warming activists, mainstream media, the UN IPCC and politicians seeking to implement draconian climate policy on their citizenry…

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 8.21.43 am.png

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. [This is an update of Fig. 9a inHansen et al. (2010).]

“The Pause” is well and truly wiped from the record, with vengeance!

C/w UAH satellite global temp data:

 

VISUALISING NASA / NOAA DATA FRAUD aka “Adjustments”

NASA has doubled global warming since 2001:

 

NASA make up make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data. NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is fake:

 

NASA has massively altered their US temperature data since 1999, to make a 1930-2000 cooling trend disappear:

SEE more extreme examples of NASA / NOAA temperature data fraud at Tony Heller’s superb resource: The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

*

GOOD READ : Satellites / Thermometers

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 

via CFACT

by Dr. Roy Spencer

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencer-178x300thermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

•••

“The Pause” related :

“Hottest Year Evah” Meme via Dataset related :

Climatism Top Posts :

Climate Science related :

Source info :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ, Jamie 🙂

Donate with PayPal

•••


THE Great Global Warming “Pause”

Stop_global_warming_sign_in_blizzard_-_February_10,_2010_blizzard.jpg

BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…

1997 – 2015 TEMPS

 

 

PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”

Read the rest of this entry »


NEW STUDY: Global Warming “Pause” Confirmed, Climate Models Wrong

Scafetta et al.png

FOLLOWING on from the landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience that concedes the world has not warmed as predicted this century, comes a new paper from Scafetta et al, confirming that the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” indeed lives on!

via GWPF :

ABSTRACT

The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.

1. INTRODUCTION

As explained in part 1 of this study [1], in the last decade future climate scenarios have been used to develop and politically enforce energy expensive policies to contrast catastrophic climate warming expectations for the 21st century. This has been done mostly by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2, 3, 4]. Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).

However, before trusting GCM projections about future climatic changes, it is necessary to validate these models by testing whether they are able to properly reconstruct past climate changes. In Ref. [1], the authors have argued that since 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT [6]. However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences [11] and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14- 16].

To test the reliability of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) GCMs, in Ref. [1] it was shown that for the period 1860-2016 they predict an excessive warming relative to four independent global surface temperature reconstructions. This was a first significant discrepancy between observations and models. Then, it was noted that AGWT advocates had claimed that discrepancies between observation and modeled predictions could occur because of an unforced internal variability of the climate system that the same GCMs are able to predict [17].

These people were very explicit by providing the following scientific criterion to validate the models: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” [18].

By using such a 15-year interval criterion, in Ref. [1] we tested the CMIP5 GCMs against the observations in the periods 1922-1941, 1980-1999 and 200-2016. The first two periods were selected because they are characterized by a strong and compatible warming rate but by very different rate of anthropogenic GHG emissions. On the contrary, the 2000- 2017 period is characterized by a very strong increase of anthropogenic GHG emissions while the temperature has been quasi stationary. Our statistical analysis [1] confirmed with a 95% confidence that the GCMs fail to properly reconstruct the temperature trends in 1922-1941 and in 2000-2017. Thus, according to the very criterion proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, the GCMs used to support the AGWT are demonstrated to be flawed.

Herein, a detailed study of the natural climatic variability observed after 2000 in six available global temperature records versus the performance of the GCMs is carried out. We also critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 oC. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 oC: see Figure 2 in Ref. [1]. Finally, for the post 2000 period we compare the predictions of the CMIP5 GCMs used by the IPCC [2013], against that of two semi-empirical models proposed a few years ago [15,19].

These models were based on a specific number of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus an anthropogenic warming effect strongly reduced by 50% relative to the GCM predictions. We stress that the latter result is consistent with recent scientific literature findings [20] confirming that the real climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about half, that is between 1 oC and 2 oC, than what predicted by the GCMs supporting the AGWT, which is about 3 oC [4].

Full paper

Warmist paper Millar et al confirming the warming slowdown in the first fifteen years of this century, contradicting UN IPCC Climate model simulations :

100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

Times CMIP5.png

AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES

IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.

Christy CMIP5

UN IPCC CMIP5 Climate models Vs Observations – presented by John Christy PhD to US Senate Congress on Climate Change

 

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dr. Christy was 100% correct …

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

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

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at , September 26, 6.46.02 AM

“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.” Myles Allen – professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford 

 

SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.

cagw.jpg

The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop

AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?

DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :

The pause is alive and well!

 

 

There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.

I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!

But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.

Climate change predictions — what went wrong? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


Warmist Scientist Admits: Our Models Were Wrong

MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !

via PA Pundits…

 

UPDATE via Climatism:

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.

There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.

Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.

It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.

Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.

From the abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.

Sceptical scientists identified this problem years ago:

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…

View original post 93 more words