Yes, yes, of course

Worst-case global heating scenarios may need to be revised upwards in light of a better understanding of the role of clouds, scientists have said.

Recent modelling data suggests the climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed, and experts said the projections had the potential to be “incredibly alarming”, though they stressed further research would be needed to validate the new numbers.

Modelling results from more than 20 institutions are being compiled for the sixth assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is due to be released next year.

Compared with the last assessment in 2014, 25% of them show a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity – the amount of warming projected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million.

This must be true. For as it has become increasingly obvious that RCP 8.5 is not true, cannot be true and has never been true how are we going to keep panicking the proles unless we change some other parameter to ensure that disaster looms?

After all, industrial civilisation is the enemy, everything else just an excuse.

There is just the one little fly in this ointment:

The IPCC is expected to include the 5+C climate sensitivity figure in its next report on the range of possible outcomes. Scientists caution that this is a work in progress and that doubts remain because such a high figure does not fit with historical records.

As it doesn’t explain what has happened it’s not a great deal of use in trying to explain what will now, is it? Weird that so many adults are fixated on the fantasies of a teenage girl but there’s no accounting for sexual tastes.

35 thoughts on “Yes, yes, of course”

  1. I know there are all sorts of fetishes out there, but I’m afraid to search for “mong fetish” in Google!

  2. They put the results of twenty models into an ensemble and produce a single result. They do not then compare it with anything which has been measured. When you do, you can easily see that the more extreme (always on the high side) models are nothing like what has happened in terms of climate sensitivity. If you have a model that is too high ALL the time (I’m talking about you, Canada), why would you put it in the ensemble? You’d throw it out in order that it wouldn’t contaminate the results of better models. So as to get a more accurate figure. But they don’t. It is obvious why. The models are being used to create a scenario that is nothing to do with reality or accuracy.

  3. Maritime Barbarian

    Clouds. They’ve noticed clouds.
    Water vapour is a huge slice of the so-called greenhouse effect, but not included in calculations because they don’t know how to model it.
    Well done, people.

  4. If only their interest in Fascist Pippi was merely sexual. Her deranged hysteria is convenient for warmists and their agenda.

  5. 25% of models are forecasting something even worse – 75% of the models do not. Does The Gruaniad mention this? Of course not!
    The journalist majors on one of the wild models being British but is, surprisingly, honest enough to include a comment from one of those responsible *“This figure has the potential to be incredibly alarming if it is right,” she said. “But as a scientist, my first response is: why has the model done that? We are still in the stage of evaluating the processes driving the different response.”*. In other words this is a piece of speculation that hasn’t been properly checked yet but is used to produce a scare headline.

  6. Recent modelling data suggests the climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed, and experts said the projections had the potential to be “incredibly alarming”,

    It’s worse than we thought!!!!1

    though they stressed further research would be needed to validate the new numbers.

    But we need more money!!!!1

    I fucking love Science™

  7. 5C – be fair, they have a newspaper to sell, and they know their readership…

    MB

    “water vapour … but not included in calculations because they don’t know how to model it.”

    I thought it was one of the feedbacks (variations from 1.1C) that they do “try” and model, ie vapour being the main positive feedback? Unlike those they can’t (as otherwise they wouldn’t always continue to be wrong)?

  8. doubts remain because such a high figure does not fit with historical records.

    Then the historical records are problematic, and must be changed (again)

  9. ‘Worst-case global heating scenarios may need to be revised upwards in light of a better understanding of the role of clouds, scientists have said.’

    Oooooo . . . SCIENTISTS!

    Might they need to be revised DOWNWARDS?

    ‘in light of a better understanding’

    They confess that they have no clue what they are doing.

    ‘Modelling results from more than 20 institutions are being compiled’

    Why not ONE?

    Confession #2. They still have no clue what they are doing.

  10. Correct, Mr Crun.

    https://junkscience.com/2020/06/obama-cdc-director-undercuts-wapo-bid-to-keep-coronavirus-lockdown-going/

    ‘Next Friedman admits that the point of the always-wrong epidemiological models is not to be accurate but to get you to change your behavior.

    So Friedman looks at epidemiology modeling as authoritative-sounding lie to achieve a particular goal — by the way, a goal of the epidemiologist, which might not be the anyone else’s goal or the best goal.’

  11. The whole concept of ensembles is a crock. You can’t average results like that, as the variations aren’t noise-like. They are based on different premises in the different models, and the average has no physical significance. Conversely, averages of errors produced by noise, especially Gaussian noise, have a very solid theoretical background.

  12. “Compared with the last assessment in 2014, 25% of them show a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity – the amount of warming projected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million.”

    So when we were told that The Science Is Settled, it was actually out by 66%? So, “the science” is really rather inaccurate? The models aren’t that stable? We missed data in 2014 that we spotted now? So, what other data was missed?

  13. So many objections, so little time…

    Palmer explains how the new Hadley Centre model that produced the 5+C figure on climate sensitivity was tested by assessing its accuracy in forecasting short-term weather.

    But we keep getting told that weather is not climate.

    “The more we learn, the more fragile the Earth system seems to be and the faster we need to move,”

    Maybe that’s a good argument for moving slower?

    BoM4 beat me to the science is settled point.

  14. I Spy – computer modelling.

    ‘… data suggests the climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed..’

    Data does not ‘suggest’ it either supports predictions based on hypothesis or it does not, which in the latter case means the hypothesis is wrong.

    And belief is religion not science.

  15. Meanwhile, over my sixty two year lifetime, the climate has hardly changed at all in my neck of the woods. The winters are noticeably milder. We still get the same changeable and indifferent summers with a long hot one very occasionally. 2018 had a new temperature record that beat 1976 by a few hundredths of a degree. A few hundredths of a degree over 42 years, just as those computer models predicted, oh wait…

  16. A question to ask those worried about the current 420 parts per million (ppm) level of CO2 in the atmosphere:
    On a scale of 1 to 40 (where approx. 40 is the highest level shown in the geologic record and <1 = ‘only certain types of grasses will survive with CO2 at this low level’, where are we today ?
    Answer = 2.
    So by just how much do the climate catastrophists want to reduce CO2 then?
    1 = 200 ppm
    40 = approx. 7800 ppm
    And if the Earth has dealt with CO2 at 7800 ppm without runaway warning, what evidence do the catastrophists have for their dire predictions (outside their ‘models’ predictions)?

  17. @ Stonyground
    Youngster, I have noticed climate change in *my* lifetime: when I was small I used to get chilblains every winter; snow at Christmas was the norm and we expected snow on the ground up to mid-February, occasionally we had snow on the ground in March and April. OTOH the summer of 1947 (which I don’t actually remember) was so sunny and hot that it bleached my hair to ash-/platinum-blond.
    The change between the 1940s and 1990s was adequately explained by the sunspot cycle. I think that it is reasonable to attribute *some* of the more recent increase to AGW – if burning a trillion tons of coal doesn’t warm the planet then physics is just a cult.
    What gets right up my nose is the habit of “climate scientists” to lie and then say, when challenged, that lying is justified because …

  18. Dennis: Oppressor, Warmonger, Capitalist and Consumer of Petroleum Products

    Wake me up when we’re allowed to shoot them all.

  19. Worst-case global heating scenarios may need to be revised upwards in light of a better understanding of the role of clouds, scientists have said.

    Wait, I thought the science was settled?

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/clouds-may-actually-have-slowed-recent-warming-but-that-wont-last/

    So, they’re saying that this is ‘above average cloud cover’ – but apparently the change in cloud cover *is not* connected to global warming and so could be gone any second now?

    That’s . . . convenient.

  20. Whether you have snow at Christmas or not is weather, not climate.

    England has been Cfb (Koeppen) for over a hundred years.

    NO COUNTRY IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD HAS HAD CLIMATE CHANGE IS OVER 100 YEARS.

    Climate change is a lie. It ain’t happening. The politicizers of science depend on your ignorance, and not checking what they say, cos science.

  21. @Diogenes, that is some seriously deluded stuff. Basically random words with neo-liberalism always kills therefore it’s bad and socialism can sometimes work therefore socialism is good.

  22. @ Addolff
    “And if the Earth has dealt with CO2 at 7800 ppm without runaway warning…”

    It was a more benign type of CO2.

  23. @ asiaseen

    Yeah, it didn’t come from coal or oil so much more benign. Where’s Newmonia this is their level of discourse?

  24. @ Gamecock
    Whether you get snow for ONE Christmas is weather – if you get it every Christmas it’s climatwe

  25. Bloke in North Dorset

    The problem with climate models is that they are designed to show that we have global warming. If they come back with a result that doesn’t confirm that theory (we really should still be talking about hypothesis) they must be wrong and will get tweaked until they do.

  26. I liked the way our fan of Socialism derided rich, low inequality countries. Given that wealth and low inequality is the whole point of Socialism, how can this be? The wealthy low inequality countries should be the least free market, not the most.

  27. ‘The whole concept of ensembles is a crock.’

    True. They acknowledge that each model output is wrong. The average of 20 wrongs is not a right.

    “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *