They’re lying obviously

A report based on science from the Met Office and around the world sets out a range of climate scenarios over the next century to help homes and businesses plan for the future.

Even in the lowest-emission scenario, average annual temperatures are expected to be up to 2.3 degrees Celsius (36.14°F) higher by the end of the century.

In the highest-emissions scenario, summer temperatures could be up to 5.4C (41.72°F) higher by 2070 and winters up to 4.2C (39.56°F) higher.

36 oF? I think not.

But also that higher estimate depends upon the idea that RCP 8.5 will happen. Which it won’t. For we really do know this one thing about climate change, that RCP 8.5 will not happen. We’ve already done the work to make sure that it won’t.

Yes, I know, you’ll tell me that I shouldn’t be taking any of it seriously. But still, it does annoy that people continue to alarm us with something we know, absolutely, isn’t going to happen.

38 comments on “They’re lying obviously

  1. 2.3°? Are the wine makers in Margaux buying land in Lesparre? Because at some point, Lesparre or Royan will be the places that are optimal for wine growing rather than Margaux.

    Is the price of English sparkling wine falling compared to the Loire as our yields increase due to the sun? No. It’s still chuffing expensive.

    What’s the climate change effect either in outcomes or investments that should be observable in markets?

  2. Might I be the first to point out that a change of 5.4°C is not a change of 41.72°F, and that a) they’re 32°F out there because the journo who did the calculation doesn’t understand numbers, and that b) all those decimal places are pointless and give a false sense of precision?

  3. “Might I be the first to point out”

    Someone was always going to 🙂

    “because the journo who did the calculation doesn’t understand numbers”

    Now you’re just being polite.

  4. ‘A report based on science from the Met Office and around the world sets out a range of climate scenarios.

    The science. Observed global mean temperature anomaly since 1979 and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels show no correlation.

    For there to be a causal link between two variables, there MUST be correlation.

    In the absence of correlation, projecting future temperature variation versus future CO2 emissions is based entirely on an assumed value for climate sensitivity to CO2 which is not validated by observation and introduces a margin of error which will be compounded and increased the further into the future the projection is made. This is not science.

    So which out of this lottery of ‘scenarios’ is the correct one?

    Anyone who plans anything on this nonsense deserves all they get.

  5. The point of the exercise.cannot be climate control else the “science” presented would be complete and consistent . Also the response would be the simplest possible.
    I deduce that the point is to scare people.out of using cheap reliable energy.
    Since this is only happening in the West I further deduce that weakening the West is the motive.
    I am far more worried about the ill effects of purported efforts to control the weather than I am by any change in the.weather.

  6. Oh Timmy, have you really never seen journos convert temperature change numbers expressed as relative changes in oC into oF using the absolute conversion scale? It happens all the time; you really don’t need to go all Daily Mail on us.

    Maybe if you’re a bit duff at maths its harder to see 🙂

  7. Correct, abacab.

    ‘I believe that economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show they have a sense of humor.’ – William Gilmore Simms

  8. But no comment on the Met Office still pushing the RCP 8.5 scenario as the upper limit when RCP 8.5 is no longer a possibility, Mr Connolley? That was what the post was about, wasn’t it? Lying That university grads have problems with numbers is a given we’re all familiar with.

  9. But it is things like this that calls into question the Carbon Tax Tim so regularly advocates. It requires the pricing in of the negative externality of carbon emission. And that’s going to rely on data from proven liars like the Met Office & figure fiddlers like Connolley.

  10. Dahlings, are you sad that Timmy can’t tell the difference between relative and absolute? As to your “proven liars” um no: all this post proves is that Timmy’s understanding is deficient. His bold and confident claims of lies are based on his failure of understanding. Never mind, you’ll defend him to the death because your tribalism is more important to you than reality.

  11. William Con-Man-Alley–You and your gang are a proven bunch of bullshiters enough times over to need scientific notation to express the number.

    People aren’t falling for your cockrot any longer chump. And having wannabe Global Elite scum spew it isn’t helping you either.

  12. “Dahlings, are you sad that Timmy can’t tell the difference between relative and absolute?”

    Tim can. The climate alarmists writing this story evidently didn’t.

    “His bold and confident claims of lies are based on his failure of understanding.”

    Go on then. Show us the evidence that the RCP8.5 scenario could still happen.

  13. Welcome back Wilhelm Con Man Allay I assumed you’d died or something, anyway you’re back so that raised the average age of posters here and lowered the average IQ (by quite a lot actually!!).

    I’ve just noticed your initials are WC – I assume that’s where you get your inspiration from? Or where your ideas would inevitably take us?

    Anyway, it’s clear you’re a sad wanker, just so you know!!!

  14. “all this post proves is that Timmy’s understanding is deficient. His bold and confident claims of lies are based on his failure of understanding.”

    Thanks, William, that really did aid my understanding.

    “Never mind, you’ll defend him to the death because your tribalism is more important to you than reality.”

    Now you’re just being an dimwit? You clearly still read this blog. And yet you seem farcically unable to observe that the one thing Timmy routinely gets obliterated on here is whenever he opens his mouth on climate change. If you call that defending him to the death, it might explain something about your own powers of observation / judgement more generally?

  15. > Tim can.

    I don’t think so. He wouldn’t have written it the way he did had he realised at the time.

    > the evidence that the RCP8.5 scenario could still happen

    It’s the future. Almost anything can happen in the future. But I don’t have to show that it is plausible; I’m not claiming it is. It’s you foaming types that are claiming that it is a lie and thus 100% impossible who are making a strong claim, without evidence.

    > People aren’t falling for

    But isn’t that what makes you so sad? Because as you can see the mainstream scientific view as represented by IPCC AR5 *is* largely accepted across the world[1]. Even Timmy accepts it. If it was no longer “fallen for” you wouldn’t be foaming.

    [1] With the regrettable exception of the USAnian pols headed by Trump; but he’s a twat.

  16. “But I don’t have to show that it is plausible; I’m not claiming it is.”

    Thanks. That confirms Tim’s point.

    “Because as you can see the mainstream scientific view as represented by IPCC AR5 *is* largely accepted across the world[1].”

    If it was, all the people who believed would have done something about it by now. But they haven’t, because they don’t.

    “With the regrettable exception of the USAnian pols headed by Trump;”

    The US policy under *every* government since 1997 has been expressed by the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed near unanimously by *both* sides of the house, the sense of which is that yes they do believe in climate change, and they’ll join in just as soon as someone proposes international action that will actually have an effect on the climate, and isn’t just aimed at destroying the US economy.

    The international community has of course always refused to do so (because they never actually believed in it, it was always just a scheme to redistribute wealth from the West to the developing world), but blamed the resulting breakdown on the US. The nearest they got was Bali, where at the last minute they got China to agree to emissions reductions, with the intention of having Obama able to make a big show of signing up to it. But when China corrected their statement to say they were only talking about reductions in carbon intensity the deal was off. Obama was following Byrd-Hagel, too.

    Despite all the rhetoric, Trump would probably consider it too, if he was offered something of advantage to him. His public pronouncements are often just an initial negotiating position, and Byrd-Hagel does still stand as the chosen policy of both parties in the Senate – he’d have to take that seriously. But we’ll never know, because everyone knows now that nobody is going to offer a deal that satisfies Byrd-Hagel, because the rest of the international community don’t believe in climate catastrophe either.

  17. The one that came out from the government of the USA recently said the economic costs of RCP8.5 by some year far away in the future would be 150bn USD a year compared to something else.
    Did anyone else see this number – less than 1% of national income per year is the costs. Heck, design a carbon tax that collects the 150bn if you have to ( seems sensible to me ) and carry on with the free enterprise system – this is not worth foregoing economic advancement for.

  18. “I deduce that the point is to scare people out of using cheap reliable energy. Since this is only happening in the West I further deduce that weakening the West is the motive”

    “Indonesia is set to nearly double its coal consumption”
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/11/25/coal-to-remain-king-in-indonesia/

    “China’s Thermal Power Continues To Rise”
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/chinas-thermal-power-continues-to-rise-up-6-9-so-far-this-year/

  19. There used to be a handy convention whereby 42°F referred to a temperature and 42F° referred to a temperature difference, and similarly for Celsius (then known as centigrade).

    So unambiguous, transparent, and convenient was this habit that it was abolished by Them.

  20. Interesting:

    Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

    …NASA global temperature data, noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

    “The 2016-2018 Big Chill, was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”

    Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

    In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.

    In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown’s story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.”

    News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they’re doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

  21. NiV –

    The US policy under *every* government since 1997 has been expressed by the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed near unanimously by *both* sides of the house, the sense of which is that yes they do believe in climate change, and they’ll join in just as soon as someone proposes international action that will actually have an effect on the climate, and isn’t just aimed at destroying the US economy.

    The international community has of course always refused to do so (because they never actually believed in it, it was always just a scheme to redistribute wealth from the West to the developing world),

    2015 CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (million metric tons)

    China – 9040.74
    USA – 4997.50
    UK – 389.75

    NB these figures are from fuel combustion only. They don’t take into account that China produced and poured more cement (a notoriously CO2 intensive activity) between 2011-2013 than the entire USA throughout the whole of the 20th century.

    It also doesn’t take into account that China is currently building enough new coal-fired power stations to replace the entire US coal fleet.

    One of the many reasons why global warming is a scam is that nobody in a position of power behaves as if they believe their own warnings.

    If they did, we’d be at war with China, not feeding their dirty, polluting, exploitative industries what remains of our own industrial capacity.

    Yet Britain, whose contribution to atmospheric CO2 is absolutely negligible, has enshrined in law the goal of inflicting fuel poverty on the vast majority of its own citizens – because this is the only plausible way the arbitrary targets in the Climate Change Act can be achieved.

    (At the same time, of course, the establishment has forced open Britain’s legs to massive Third World immigration and is set to sign the new UN Migration Pact – another major cause of both poverty and pollution)

    The middle classes have an inchoate fear that their children are going to enjoy worse lives than they did. They’re not paranoid, this is exactly the plan.

    If the British people ever realise what’s being done to them, with malice aforethought, a lot of politicians are going to get the Ceausescu retirement package.

  22. “In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.”

    It doesn’t. Neither did the rise that immediately preceded it.

    There was a time when El Nino spikes were big news, and would have been hyped to the skies, and under those circumstances there is some rhetorical point in pointing out the fall in the same sort of hyperbolic terms – not to make a serious claim, but simply to make clear the hypocrisy of one-sidedly reporting weather as climate.

    But apart from a few die-hards, nobody’s been doing that for years. They learnt what would happen if they tried it a long time ago. So there’s really no point in reporting the cooling, either.

    Climate change alarm is dead. The new alarm is plastic – plastic straws, plastic bags, plastic microbeads, … Generals are always wanting to fight the last war.

  23. “f the British people ever realise what’s being done to them, with malice aforethought, a lot of politicians are going to get the Ceausescu retirement package.”

    The people forget – it’s like in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. It goes down the memory hole, and nobody remembers it even happened any more.

    It’s like all the other previous eco-scare stories. Remember the 1960s and the Population Bomb? Everyone *knew* that mankind was doomed, the developing world was going to starve, there would be wars and famines and pollution and the oceans dying and the forests burning and resources running out.

    Then when it became obvious that the predictions weren’t coming true, it all just silently vanished. There was no grand debunking, or enquiries into what had gone wrong with science. The media just stopped mentioning it. And within a few years everyone forgot about it.

    Climate change has already gone. The gravy train will chug along on its own inertia for a while, but nobody’s interested. The big question is, though, what’s going to be next?

  24. NiV – I think you’re forgetting that the Climate Change Act hasn’t gone away, we’re still facing the prospect of brownouts or power rationing in the not-too-distant as a result of all the power stations the government is decomissioning, and government figures are compounding their errors by taking wildly unpopular stances such as talking about banning cars.

    It’s easy to walk back talk, harder to smooth over serious structural problems inflicted on the economy and vital national infrastructure.

    The future will be like the past except when it isn’t.

  25. A much warmer Britain (snigger). Great news for these cold and damp islands.
    So there’s less need to insulate the old habitat. Gov can drop any incentives, therefore, for added insulation in the sure knowledge that we’ll be living in warmer climes. We should applaud this new knowledge and act on it pronto by not bothering to worry about the need to heat our homes and start building the barbies about the back (if you have a garden that is–it’ll be more like a dust patch in the sweltering heatwaves we’re going to get. Maybe invest in that double capacity fridge for the ice cold beers we’re going to need.

    Government knows best, folks. Sign up. Sign up!
    Just like using diesel is good…
    Just like intermittents are cheap…
    Just like [you name it here]

  26. “I think you’re forgetting that the Climate Change Act hasn’t gone away, we’re still facing the prospect of brownouts or power rationing in the not-too-distant as a result of all the power stations the government is decomissioning, and government figures are compounding their errors by taking wildly unpopular stances such as talking about banning cars.”

    Yes, there’s a lot of talk, but not a lot of action. Much of it is just a delaying action until the spotlight goes away and they can quietly drop it. As well as a few cases of them shovelling public money into the pockets of their friends, of course, but since when has that not happened?

    As for banning petrol/diesel cars – that’s just taking advantage of an ongoing trend for their own PR purposes – stealing the credit. It would be like proposing a ban on using copper cable for telecoms just as glass fibre was being introduced.

    They’re politicians. They’re not going to do anything as wildly unpopular as letting the lights go out or stopping people driving. They’d be voted out, pronto, at the next election. Green vote or no green vote. But they’re always very happy to make grand promises they’ve no intention of keeping, especially if they can blame their failure on somebody else.

    They’ll probably just issue themselves some temporary waivers while they get the details sorted out, which they will somehow never get around to rescinding.

  27. The last time the Met Office predicted barbecue summers and children not knowing what snow looked like, we know what happened

    We appear to be in some sort of final act, death throes etc

    Don’t the gravy train know? The band wagon has moved on, its the Great Plastic Killer (TM) now, climate catastrophism is so last year dahling

  28. …NASA global temperature data, noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

    Don’t worry, they’ll take care of that.There will be “an adjustment” to make it consistent with, well, whatever they want it to be consistent with.

  29. The funny thing was back in the mid 2000s there was a big report that predicted exactly the same thing – ‘Hotter drier summers in the UK due to [as was then] climate change!’ it proudly boasted. Probably based on the fact that just prior to its production there had been a really hot summer (2006) and a real heatwave in Europe (2003).

    What then followed were 3 of the top 10 wettest coldest summers in the last 100 years (2007/8/9) and then the wettest summer for 100 years (2012). Now the funny thing is that I started making hay as a business on the farm in 2007, and so I have a very good memory for what each summer was like, as each one is seared into my brain – trying to make hay in a wet summer is enough to turn a Methodist to drink. So I’m well aware there has been only one summer since 2007 with a prolonged hot and dry spell and that was 2013. And that was only about a really hot dry month, the rest of the summer was no more than average. Other than that they have either been excessively wet (the ones mentioned above plus 2017) or no better than average.

    That is until 2018 when we had a corker of a summer, the sort we used to get when I was kid in the late 70s and early 80s, when the ground cracked and you’d watch the Test match on the TV and the outfield would be completely brown, with just a patch of green on the square. Then suddenly we get a ‘scientific’ report saying summers are going to be hot and dry and we’re all going to fry. Not a coincidence I think…………..

  30. Incidentally, as far as I can see, the main drver of the UK’s climate is the sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic. Which varies between (relatively) warm and cool phases, on both a long and short term basis. And when the North Atlantic is cool, it promotes blocking high pressure systems that mean the UK either freezes in winter or boils in summer. And when the NA is warm it promotes low pressure systems to be created and these are driven across the UK by the jet stream, resulting in milder, damper (but often stormy) weather across the UK.

    And guess what – the NA was in a long term cool phase from about 1960 to the late 90s, in which time we had a series of cold winters and hot summers, and moved into a long term warm phase around the end of the 90s, whereupon the UK moved into a period of generally mild winters and damper summers. And guess what again – pretty much all this year there has been a very large blob of cold water sat off Greenland which has created a blocking high that has resulted in the very cold weather we had in the Spring (Beast from the East etc) and then the amazing summer we had.

  31. “Don’t worry, they’ll take care of that.There will be “an adjustment” to make it consistent with, well, whatever they want it to be consistent with.”

    Take a look at the graph here, and in particular the bit after the spike in 2016. That’s what they’re talking about.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Given that, do you really think they need to use the ‘adjustments’ approach here? Wouldn’t they just use the ‘weather is not climate’ line instead?

    We shouldn’t use their methods, except to draw attention to their methods.

  32. It continually amazes me thar scientists hold such store in climate models so obviously detached from reality.

    GCM’s estimate increases in GMST in excess of 3’C. Which would put us back to the temperature of the Cretaceous 66 MYA ago. But the physical earth climate system is so different it simply cannot be correct. The Cretaceous was a hot house climate, there were no ice caps and the abyssal depths were 11’C warmer than they are today – Antarctica was positioned over the south Pole but had no ice caps, instead consisting of sub-tropical forests and swamps. By contrast today we are currently in an interglacial of the Quaternary ice-age, in a world where the big picture climate trend is cooling (Antarctic ice cap 14 MYA, ice age 2.6 MYA, Mid Pleistocene Transition 0.8 MYA).

  33. “GCM’s estimate increases in GMST in excess of 3’C. Which would put us back to the temperature of the Cretaceous 66 MYA ago.”

    The average temperature in the Cretaceous would be about 15 C warmer than today, not 3 C.

    The Holocene Climate Optimum about 8000 years ago was more than 3 C warmer at high latitudes (near the poles), but less near the equator.

    The Eemian period about 120,000 years ago was probably around 2-4 C warmer than the Holocene.

    There’s a graph here that gives good context, but bear in mind that the older the records, the more blurred/smoothed the reconstruction is, so short-lived spikes wouldn’t show up.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg

    Other things to consider are stadials and interstadials, which are very brief periods of sudden climate change. The Younger Dryas, for example, resulted in changes of 2-6 C in a matter of decades. That was about 12,000 years ago. And the ice ages, of course, resulted in global temperature chances of around 8-10 C.

    On a local scale, there have been even more dramatic climate changes in relatively recent times, like the North American megadroughts or the Green Sahara.

    The climate changes. Always has. Always will. And probably a lot more than we think it does.

    The problem has always been figuring out how much of it is natural. And without a validated model of how variable the natural variation actually is, it’s impossible to distinguish any anthropogenic component from the background noise.

  34. I ain’t skeert. I plan to check out by 2055, at the latest.

    “Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead.”— John Maynard Keynes

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.