That New Study Saying Global Warming Is Occurring Much Slower Than Thought Doesn’t Say That Or Something

Two 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 years and years. And now the spin starts

New Climate Study Doesn’t Contradict Global Warming, No Matter What Breitbart Says

….

Things went totally off the rails from there. “The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean—the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong,” bloviated The Sun. “Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming,” Breitbartpiled on.

It got so out of hand that the University of Oxford-based researchers released a statement yesterday disavowing the idea that we now longer need to take aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions, followed by a response article in The Guardian this morning.

Here’s what really happened. …

You know some serious spin is coming your way.

Whether the authors are correct in their baseline or not, the study’s message isn’t that it’s time to rest on our laurels if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. But that misleading message was compounded when some outlets keyed in on a suggestion in the paper that climate models have “overestimated” warming by 0.3 degrees C, taking this to mean that temperatures are not rising as quickly as the IPCC says they are. Not only was the paper was not intended to assess discrepancies between climate models and observations, its findings are in line with the IPCC, a fact which the authors readily admit.

That is exactly what the study was saying, prior to the spin starting.

“Out predictions for warming rates over the coming decades are identical to those of the IPCC,” study authors Miles Allen and Richard Miller wrote in the Guardian.

The IPCC models are well over what the actual observations ended up being.

Comparing models with observations isn’t always an easy or even a good thing to do.

This entire schtick is based on models. And when the observations don’t agree, the observations are changed, not the model outcomes.

Still, the essential conclusion of this new study didn’t differ all that much from those that came before it: We need aggressive carbon reductions immediately if we want to keep climate change to a minimum.

When will Gizmodo give up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral?

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

24 Responses to “That New Study Saying Global Warming Is Occurring Much Slower Than Thought Doesn’t Say That Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Just as I pointed out the other day, the paper didn’t say what you and the Denialists said it did. But we’re used to Denialist lies.

    TEACH typed:

    The IPCC models are well over what the actual observations ended up being.

    We assume you base that falsehood on Roy Spencer’s fraudulent figure he’s been pimping for a few years.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Who are you gonna believe? Serial liar James Delingpole or the climate scientist authors of the scientific article?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/21/when-media-sceptics-misrepresent-our-climate-research-we-must-speak-out

    Here’s the reality check: The Earth continues to warm because of CO2 we humans have added (and continue to add) to the atmosphere. There is no scientifically-based reason to expect this warming to stop without slowing and stopping our dumping of gigatons of CO2 each year.

  3. Jeffery says:

    This is what the Denialist elites do, repeatedly. They spread lies to the faithful tying their lies to highly technical papers that the faithful will not read, and if they do read, cannot understand. Then they rely on their lapdog bloggers to uncritically spread the word.

    You’ve been had once again but your elites.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible nature. Unaware that the nature he is destroying is the God he is worshipping.

    — Hubert Reeves

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Section 14.2.2.2

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    • Zachriel says:

      Continuing, “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

      1. The mean global surface temperature is increasing.
      2. Climate stasis is very improbable.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Sooo, again one would wonder WHY this information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

        • Zachriel says:

          drowningpuppies: one would wonder WHY this information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

          It was. Uncertainties are discussed throughout the Summary Report.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            given to the press and public.

            Can you provide any press release that includes this paragraph?

          • Zachriel says:

            Press release? You asked about the Summary for Policy Makers. Here are a few quotes concerning uncertainty from the IPCC Third Assessment Summary for Policy Makers.

            “Climate change decision making is essentially a sequential process under general uncertainty.”

            “There is a wide band of uncertainty in the amount of warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gas concentration.”

            “Because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emission scenarios.”

          • drowningpuppies says:

            So you cannot disprove my original post but you sure can tap dance.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

            In fact, that information was provided in great deal in the Summary Report.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Okay, you got me. It was included.

            UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001. Section 14.2.2.2 page 774

            Guess the press and public read that far.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001. Section 14.2.2.2 page 774

            The TAR Summary Report for Policymakers is only 34 pages long. The first quote above is from page 3.

          • Zachriel says:

            From the title page of the TAR Summary Report for Policymakers:

            This summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary XVIII (Wembley, United Kingdom, 24-29 September 2001), represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group contributions to the Third Assessment Report. {emphasis added}

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Yet the public got stories like this from the press

            Notably, when it was clear your original claim was false, rather than simply admitting your error, you diverted from the discussion of the IPCC Third Assessment Summary Report for Policymakers.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            drowningpuppies says:
            September 24, 2017 at 12:02 pm
            Okay, you got me. It was included.

            Hello.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: It was included. {in the Summary Report}

            That’s all you had to say. Thanks.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      And that’s all you had to read.
      Thanks.

      • Zachriel says:

        You had wrote, “UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001. Section 14.2.2.2 page 774”. In fact, it is on the title page of the Summary Report, then discussed extensively within the body of the Summary Report.

  6. JGlanton says:

    OMG, that heatwave article is absurd apocalyptic fantasy!

    And of course, like most things AGW, they use the mild 1980s as the baseline. Instead of the times when heat was really dangerous:

    Summer, 1936: This year featured the most severe heat waves in the modern history of the country, with 3,000 people dying and the sun scorching $1 billion in crops. According to the National Weather Service, a string of 3-day and 5-day heat waves scorched the New York City, leading to a record high of 106 degrees.

    June – July, 1901: The second week-long heatwave in NYC history killed more than 700 people.

    August, 1896: During this summer, the first 10-day heat wave killed nearly 1,500 people across New York City, many of them tenement dwellers.

Bad Behavior has blocked 3668 access attempts in the last 7 days.