Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????
Read more:
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW
One of the (IPCC) reportÂ’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford UniversityÂ’s Climate Research Network, last night
said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.
Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future
He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.
They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope
)
Your reference is a great example of what used to be called, ''yellow journalism''
''Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.''
''Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.''
''But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.''
No extraordinary confession, but typical science. Look for what empirical data says about what's known.
Science knows, and has proven, the link between atmospheric GHG concentrations and global energy imbalance. Physics knows that the response to that is global warming that eventually shows up as warmer surface temperatures. Which it has.
Early models concluded that it would show up faster. Nature has said slower.
The process of warming needs to accept the data and determine where the excess energy is if not at the surface as higher temperatures raising OLR to what is needed to restored energy balance.
It's been determined. Deep in the ocean. Does that solve the problem? No. The OLR can't restore balance until surface temperatures dictate. So, the rebalancing has been delayed.
''The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.''
Everybody knows that climate has lots of random variability as well as assignable cause variability. The predictable characteristic of random variability is that it can't be predicted. If it's helping us now, it just as likely to be hurting us later.
''They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.''
I just did explain it and climate scientists know a whole lot more than I do. But apparently this reporter knows a whole lot less.
