Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended

It’s amazing: we’re now told that the models are wrong. But Mankind is still to blame

Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists said previous models may have been “on the hot side”.

The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

But the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “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.”

Remember back to Dr. Roy Spencer stating that the real consensus was 95%, as in, 95% of the models were wrong

He did this back in 2014. Looks like the Warmists are attempting to actually redo their models while still attempting to Blamestorm Mankind’s “carbon pollution.” They are still calling for “carbon budgets”, which would, of course, include carbon taxes and fees, more government control of citizens, economies, private entities, and the energy sector, and more loss of freedom coupled with a higher cost of living.

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.

As James Delingpole notes

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Exactly. The facts have not changed. The facts are the actual observations (well, the kinda do change, as the Warmists adjust, massage, smooth, and simply make up the data), and the observations disagree with the computer models, as Dr. Spencer noted.

Paul Homewood writes

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Powerline digs into the story, and comes up with an interesting tidbit, in regards to the Professor Grubb quote above

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]

A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun.

This is pretty much a vindication of what Skeptics have been saying for well over a decade, and exposes what I’ve been writing and saying for a long time: this is fake science designed to prop up Progressive (nice Fascist) ideology and policy pushes.

But, don’t for one minute think they’ll stop. To paraphrase The Terminator “Listen, and understand! That Warmists are out there! They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead paying lots of taxes!”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH:

    1. The Nature Geoscience did not conclude what the denialists claim. Did you actually read the article?

    2. You continue to use the fraudulent figure from denialist Roy Spencer, who thinks his god controls the climate. Roy fudged the baseline to lower the observed temperatures compared to the models.

    The abstract (summary):

    The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

  2. […] days ago we were offered up a glimpse of a new study that basically said that the previous models were utter trash, as Skeptics have been noting for […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 5871 access attempts in the last 7 days.