Breaking: Global Warming Hiatus Explained – UN and IPCC Global Warming Models Confirm, “Reality has Deviated from our Expectations”


Only the UN would suggest “Reality  Deviated” after telling us it took a “Hiatus ” while still maintaining the Science is Settled on Global Warming.

 

Climate Change Science: the simple explanation “Reality has Deviated from our Expectations” but we will keep the money.

 

london-snow

 

“Reality has Deviated from our Expectations”, good try but what that really means is that the predictions of Climate Scientists through their Data Models with the blessing of the IPCC and the UN have been consistently and increasingly wrong for over 15 years.

The political world needs to wake up and quick, I am sorry but “Reality has not Deviated from Anything”, reality has kept on course with what it was always going to do, all that has happened here is the biggest scientific fraud in history, the UN and IPCC endorsed Climate Models have been proved to be based on unscientific assumptions that could hardly be further from the scientific and provable truth.

 

For more interesting stories just Click on the “HOME’ Button in the Menu above.

THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE IN GLOBAL NEWS: Powerglobal.us
Enjoy Balanced, Interesting and Informative News with Common-sense Conservative Opinion focusing on Political Analysis of the US Primaries and Presidential Race, Britain’s EU Exit Vote and Australian Politics  http://www.powerglobal.us

 

 

BEARS_ICE

Climate Models that do not reflect reality over time are flawed, as in wrong and no amount of scientific terminology or political bullshit can change that reality.

Observed consistent results in reality over a period of 15 to 20 years  trump any proffered Scientific theory regardless of who is behind the theory and we all know that data models are not science. So what is going on at the UN?

 

climatemodels2012

UN IPCC Climate models versus reality of last 18 years. not even close

A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming.

That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeller and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for sceptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.

Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.

“Something that the sceptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.

Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

 

For more interesting stories just Click on the “HOME’ Button in the Menu above.

THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE IN GLOBAL NEWS: Powerglobal.us
Enjoy Balanced, Interesting and Informative News with Common-sense Conservative Opinion focusing on Political Analysis of the US Primaries and Presidential Race, Britain’s EU Exit Vote and Australian Politics  http://www.powerglobal.us

 

 

models-vs-datasets

Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.

While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.

 

John Christy

 

“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing.

“The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers sceptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Now, scepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.

Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.

Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,”

Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a  “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”

But even with the admission, some sceptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.

“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the sceptics, are harshly criticized,”

Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”

After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.

For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming.

Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.

 

For more interesting stories just Click on the “HOME’ Button in the Menu above.

THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE IN GLOBAL NEWS: Powerglobal.us
Enjoy Balanced, Interesting and Informative News with Common-sense Conservative Opinion focusing on Political Analysis of the US Primaries and Presidential Race, Britain’s EU Exit Vote and Australian Politics  http://www.powerglobal.us

 

 

Source: RSS, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

For years, climate scientists have been debating the “hiatus” in global warming, pushing dozens of explanations for why global temperatures had not risen significantly in the last decade or so in the surface record and for the last two decades in the satellite record. but the debate was cut short in June when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study claiming the “hiatus” never existed.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centres for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.

The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.

“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.

 

For more interesting stories just Click on the “HOME’ Button in the Menu above.

THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE IN GLOBAL NEWS: Powerglobal.us
Enjoy Balanced, Interesting and Informative News with Common-sense Conservative Opinion focusing on Political Analysis of the US Primaries and Presidential Race, Britain’s EU Exit Vote and Australian Politics  http://www.powerglobal.us

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Breaking: Global Warming Hiatus Explained – UN and IPCC Global Warming Models Confirm, “Reality has Deviated from our Expectations”

  1. The author draws the conclusion that the models “…have been consistently and increasingly wrong for over 15 years” from an equivocation in which the term “prediction” changes meaning in the midst of his argument. Though an equivocation looks like a syllogism, the conclusion of a syllogism is true but the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved. Thus, to draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically improper.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s