Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
telegraph.co.uk ^

Posted on 09/15/2013 9:20:46 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong

Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.

By Hayley Dixon

3:45PM BST 15 Sep 2013

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.

The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.

The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 1.3C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.

Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.

The governments which fund the IPCC have tabled 1,800 questions in relation to the report.

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artificialclouds; chemicalspraying; chemtrails; climatechange; climatechangehoax; doomage; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; ipcc; scientist; weather
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Sub-Driver

My genius never ceases to amaze me.....I was saying this ten years ago!!! applause....applause....that guy over there’s not applauding!!!!!!


41 posted on 09/15/2013 10:37:13 AM PDT by ontap (***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
This will be the new meme now. “It’s happening we just don’t know when”. Too much money involved.

Unicorns are coming to destroy the world... only the NRA knows the best way to fight unicorns... therefore all countries in the world MUST support the NRA...

42 posted on 09/15/2013 10:37:48 AM PDT by GOPJ (As Iowahawk..summed it up Putin is now just basically doing donuts in ObamaÂ’s front yard." Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
This will be the new meme now. “It’s happening we just don’t know when”. Too much money involved.

Yep, it doesn't matter if it gets very cold, the new scam is global warming is just paused or Global Warming is hiding, but when it comes back, oh boy we are going to be in more trouble then ever!

This (and ocean acidification) will allow them to keep the scam going for years if not decades

Actually, it completes Global Warming movement from science to religion, just as Christians wait the return of Jesus Christ, Global Warming cultist will be waiting for the return of Global Warming.

43 posted on 09/15/2013 10:38:44 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedom462

expressing skepticism of global warming gets you looked at like you are a product of inbreeding who ordered raw roadkill for dinner. Thankfully, some intellectuals are working to change this:


I had a discussion with an electrical engineer about global warming. I presented my case with good evidence and rational thinking I was talking with a rational person.

His response after this was, “why would anyone risk their career on something that wasn’t true?”

I walked away shaking my head.


44 posted on 09/15/2013 10:40:12 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
I'm guessing they see the cooling trend starting to shape up due to solar sunspot inactivity.

They're just trying to cover their asses for what's ahead of us in the years to come.

Meanwhile AlGore laughingly counts his money.

45 posted on 09/15/2013 10:40:13 AM PDT by The Cajun (Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Ted Cruz......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
it is a little frightening that the global warming harpys would stop screeching and admit failure.. at least this was an obvious deception to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

what will be the next thing they latch on to?
46 posted on 09/15/2013 10:41:44 AM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

IPCC predicted 1.3 degrees warming, now predict .12 degrees per decade. That be about 100% off in my book. They consider warming caused by natural causes and less on CO2 (AGW).There will be many socialist democrats cringing with that news. They predict any warming to be more beneficial than harmful.Ditto above., If you see a socialist democratic fraud still clinging to this big government radical democratic AGW scam you should walk up and B Slap them silly.


47 posted on 09/15/2013 10:43:11 AM PDT by spawn44 (MOO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: qam1

“This (and ocean acidification) will allow them to keep the scam going for years if not decades”

They are making a giant Alka-Seltzer to address this.

Just need more money for further research.


48 posted on 09/15/2013 10:55:31 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So they were off by a factor of 10 even with all the biased data observations they have produced.


49 posted on 09/15/2013 10:56:41 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (I think Obama and crew feel that time is being wasted and that we need to get the jump on Russian sh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spawn44
IPCC predicted 1.3 degrees warming, now predict .12 degrees per decade.

Then why doesn't the article say that? ? ?

50 posted on 09/15/2013 12:33:17 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: spawn44
This article claims that the previous prediction was 0.2 deg C per decade, made in 2007.
51 posted on 09/15/2013 12:50:41 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

“IPCC predicted 1.3 degrees warming, now predict .12 degrees per decade.
Then why doesn’t the article say that? ? ?

Please read post 8:

The article says .13 instead of .12.


52 posted on 09/15/2013 12:56:38 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
The article says .13 instead of .12.

So... again I ask, why does the summary above say 1.3 when the article itself says 0.13 ? That's all I'm asking.

53 posted on 09/15/2013 1:54:03 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: staytrue; Sub-Driver; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
I clicked to the original article and it differs from your post.

it says.

“warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007. “

I saw that, too. 1.3 deg C sounded a little large, even for these doom-mongers.

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Coal Industry Braces for EPA Emissions Crackdown

Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

54 posted on 09/15/2013 7:15:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Major brain damage at UMES, but no property damage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
When dealing with averages, you can easily get resolutions of 0.01 degree.

Uhhm, no; you can't. You can get a calculated value in hundredths of a degree, but you can not get a greater resolution than you started with.

Least significant figures, and all that still applies, so your average is only resolved to as few figures as your least precise measurements allow for, no matter how many places you can divide out to.

55 posted on 09/16/2013 3:34:41 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; staytrue; Izzy Dunne; Steve_Seattle; spawn44; Tolerance Sucks Rocks
why does the summary above say 1.3 when the article itself says 0.13?

I believe the issue is resolved by a simple explanation. The Telegraph botched the story, and still has it botched. I think when they originally posted the article, there was a typo in it. They had 1.3C when the writer had intended it to be 0.13C. They have since corrected it online.

However, the article is based on another article from the Daily Mail, which was posted separately on FreeRepublic at:

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit...

This article was referenced by Izzy Dunne in a previous post on this thread. Note that in the Daily Mail article, it says the prediction by the IPCC was 0.2C, not 0.13C. I guess the only way to find out what AR-4 actually said is to wade through that report.

I found the following in IPCC AR-4. Maybe a more careful read will find other mitigating claims, but this is apparently where the Daily Mail got their number:

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, 3. Projected climate change and its impacts

56 posted on 09/16/2013 4:11:17 AM PDT by Rocky (Obama is pure evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Bumper sticker material..


57 posted on 09/16/2013 4:21:31 AM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bah! All these paid-off National Science Foundation so-called “researchers” will be just as shaughty and act as smugly superior as ever. Ditto for acedemia, the MSM & lib bloggers, Dim pols, the UN self-proclaimed poobahs, all Weather Channel on-air people, Hollywierd, etc....


58 posted on 09/16/2013 5:51:47 AM PDT by citizen (There is always free government cheese in the mouse trap.....https://twitter.com/kracker0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizen

These “scientists” and “researchers” are an embarrassment to science. They should be fired and beaten with their dissertations. It’s all about stealing money from you and about control. The irresponsible twits should be imprisoned for what they have done(are doing) to societies.


59 posted on 09/16/2013 5:55:58 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
no; you can't.

Of course you can. If I measure a 0-10V pulse that has a 59% duty cycle with a voltmeter that measures to the nearest volt, and I measure it a hundred times at random intervals, then my average comes out to 5.9 Volts. THat's a resolution of 0.1V.

It's not the same thing as accuracy, which is why I didn't use the word "accuracy".

60 posted on 09/16/2013 5:58:11 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson