The other possibility

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong? 

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

David Shukman, Science editor BBC

The idea that their theory is wrong is so foreign to believers in catastrophic climate change that they  refer to the obvious provable fact of the models being wrong as just a possibility rather than the reality it is. There is no doubt that the models are wrong, it is not a possibilityy it is a fact.

But so smitten are the true believers that they are having a difficult time coming to grips with what to many is a religious belief. They are trying to come to grips with with a situation that they have viewed as an article of faith. Consider this from the same David Shukman in the same article.

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before ( emphasis mine)

The reason the BBC editor who we assume is as well informed on climate change science as anyone had never heard of this "pause" scenario before is simply because it has never been a part of the narrative, or the theory.  This is easily provable.

In 2007, half way through the current "pause" in global warming, the IPCC released their most recent assessment report, Here is what they had to say about the short term outlook on global temperatures

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} ... 

... the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).

So the IPCC boldly claimed that there models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. In order to put that in perspective the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades. That was their projection. They even went so far as to say that there was already so much CO2  in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase.

They knew by 2007 that we had not kept CO2 at 2000 levels. In January of 2000 it was 369.14 by January of 2007 it had reached  382.49. But had we kept it at 2000 levels the IPCC projected that temperatures would still increase by 0.1 C per decade. Under no scenario that was presented in the IPCC AR4 report did they project a pause in warming either in the short or long term.

What  has actually happened, out in the real world? Global temperatures have increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C between 1998 and 2012 or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from previous warming by 0.13 C. So not only has the globe not warmed as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.

Of course all the wizards of smart are coming out now and telling us that this is all to be expected

Prof Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research at the University of Reading, said: "Within the field we have taken for granted that there will be variations in the rate of warming, it is totally accepted and is no surprise ...[it] would correct to say that wasn't the message that we communicated more widely and that probably is a failing."

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

Sutton even goes so far as to claim that a pause of 20 years was even projected in some models

Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

In other words he is now claiming that rather than the 0.2 degree per decade warming projected by the IPCC for the next two decades, the climate science community was always aware that there might be no warming whatsoever. Perhaps this is true but did they mention this important little caveat in their report? No they did not.  Do their projections in their "gold standard" assessment report reflect this possibility? They do not.

As David Shukman observed "I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before" so he inquired about this lack of communication.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So let's review. The climate science community through it's "gold standard" agency, informs the world that not only will global warming continue, it will accelerate. They made this pronouncement in the middle of what we now know was a "pause" in the warming. Prior to and following the release of their "prestigious" AR4 report there is not one word about the potential for a "pause" in the warming but in fact there are countless studies and stories claiming that the warming was worse than they had expected.

“The science is quite decisive,” said Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University. “There is a very robust consensus about the reality of climate change and the need to confront it quickly.”...

“Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon,” said Somerville.Officials around the globe aim to avoid warming Earth by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit compared to preindustrial times. The idea is to avoid a “tipping point” that causes catastrophic and irreversible changes to weather patterns and landscapes. 

Without a significant change in course, global warming could reach 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the scientists said Tuesday.

Nowhere in all these studies or countless press releases has there been any indication of a "pause" or future pause. In fact in the midst of the actual pause both the GISS and HadCrut the "KEEPERS" of the temperature records "updated" their data sets which significantly altered the global temperature records upwards. One wonders what the pause would have looked like had these "official records"  not been "updated". Actually you need not wonder, just compare the satellite readings to the GISS, HadCrut measurements.

So what is the other possibility? The other possibility is not a possibility at all -it is a fact. The actual global temperatures, irregardless of the measuring agency, has not been anywhere close to those projected by the IPCC and the climate science "consensus" community. Their model's calculations are wrong yet they continue to not only promote their output as being accurate, but also literally thousands upon thousands of scientific studies in varied fields are undertaken and promoted based on these model projection's false input.

Garbage in, garbage out.