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

Posted: September 19, 2017 by tallbloke in alarmism, Forecasting, Idiots, Incompetence, IPCC, modelling, Temperature

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

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.”

According to The Times, another of the paper’s authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise.

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.”

Full story

  1. Splendid news indeed, will avidly scan the BBC and Met office blogs for confirmation of mankind’s salvation. I’m sure there will be many climate scientists and reporters just itching to pass on the jubilations.

  2. Mike Haseler says:

    It will be very interesting watching the “ebb” phase of the global warming delusion. I say “ebb”, because I’m currently looking at tidal amplification in estuaries. And the model fits quite well:
    1. The rise of the internet create an “echo-chamber” in which the fears of academia got amplified (and the science didn’t). The result was a massive massive overstatement of the actual science.
    2. The internet meant that academia lost control over the records detailing their hysteria – so whilst in the past they could quietly rewrite history to pretend they never got anything wrong – in the internet age their mistakes have been recorded where they cannot rewrite them.
    3. Just as there is a tidal inflow into an estuary – so when the tide goes out, there is a tidal rush out.
    4. And … now I think about it … there’s a distinct delay between what is happening in the estuary … and what is actually happening outside.

  3. afbnr says:

    Link to the study?

  4. craigm350 says:

    The solution remains deep cuts in emissions…despite the uncertainties which are growing with time, but let’s ignore that we still need to crash the economy after 2030.

    Link to Nature article;

  5. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Craig.
    Mike: Another estuary metaphor: The shit flows downhill.

  6. oldbrew says:

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

    Serial climate alarmists should take note, but probably won’t.
    – – –
    “Pacific islands are less doomed than we thought”

    This is how they think :/

  7. tom0mason says:

    Unfortunately too much of the ‘climate science™’ effluent is being hidden away in national statues. Here are two more UN bureaucrat/NGOs employed on global CO2 mediation of the Paris Accord…

    No shit too small to ‘save the world’.

  8. dennisambler says:

    Professor Grubb – another economist falsely elevated to “climate science” status. He participated in the Stern Review and has been an IPCC author for years.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Date: 18/09/17

  10. RobR says:

    The escape routes are being planned. Excuses are being formulated and the walkback is beginning.

  11. My take on AGW theory and why it is basically wrong.

    I think the GHG effect is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.

    I do believe in the GHG effect but I do not think it causes the climate to change. One main reason being ice core data always having shown temperature change first, then CO2 change.

    Yes CO2 absorbs infrared radiation the earth emits, as does water vapor and if a positive feedback had been established ,(that being the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator), I would have given much more credence to AGW theory, but this important premise of the theory has never materialized.

    Another problem for the theory is climatic history has shown the earth to be as warm or warmer then it is currently. An example being the Holocene Optimum.

    Another problem is I do not see the AO/NAO evolving into a more positive mode over the past few decades which this theory has called for.

    Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established.

    I will end by saying if very low solar translates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo this in my opinion will overwhelm any AGW that might be occurring.

    The test is on now and over the next several years things should become much clearer.

    I will admit to being wrong if my low avg. solar parameters are largely present from this point in time on and global temperatures do not fall.

  12. Mike Haseler says:

    OLDBREW: Not sure if I can gloat at mistakes of others! My learning point today: sin() goes negative!

  13. Curious George says:

    Professor Grubb is incompatible with science.

  14. BLACK PEARL says:

    So can I make a claim I’ve been miss sold my BS CO2 based VED ? £515 per year
    Who do I contact ?
    Will the Climate Nazi’s be allowed to disappear using established Rat Lines to South America etc with their ‘booty’ like the last lot to avoid prosecution.

  15. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    There are numerous climate models and each is extremely expensive. That there are numerous models, that they originally (before comparison) gave significantly different results, and that they are compared, with none hailed as definitive, shows that climate modelers know no model can predict climate, they just want to have their own, for publication and funding advantage. Climate modelers then say that because most of these models now show global warming that proves global warming. However, this ignores that scientists are all-too-human and don’t want to be outliers — after comparison they literally tuned their climate models (this is easily done) to give results more like the rest of the herd. Plus they even started with an assumed result (warming), which is well-known in science to skew results toward that assumption.
    The other theory is of course that the models predicted cash.

  16. tom0mason says:

    Sorry but I cannot resist (as he deserves ridicule )

    Professor Peter Wadhams. Here is what he said in the past few years.

    Daily Telegraph – 8 November 2011 (
    Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015′
    Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.

    “It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”

    No hubris there then? 🙂

  17. oldbrew says:

    As “It’s less worse than we thought”, Prof Wadham-I-talking-about can move the Arctic sea ice goalposts again 😉
    – – –
    Delingpole: ‘All that money, all that effort to — maybe — reduce “global warming” by less than the temperature difference between getting up and ­having breakfast.’

  18. oldbrew says:

    Date: 23/09/17 The Australian

    Confidence is rising in two key aspects of healthy climate scepticism. First, climate models have run “hot” and been wrong in predicting the speed and extent of warming. Second, the extended slowdown in the rate of warming since the turn of the century was real.
    . . .
    “There is no reason to believe that cycles that have been present for thousands of years suddenly ceased to operate about a century ago”

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