IPCC admits defeat as global warming stops and models fail

A new paper from SPPI and Christopher Monckton:

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]

 Excerpts:

All you need to know about “global warming” is in this one simple graph. For 17 years 5 months, there has not been any global warming at all. 

None of the computer models so imprudently relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that.

The next two graphs show how dramatic was the reduction in the IPCC’s near-term global warming prediction between the pre-final and final drafts of the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report.

The IPCC has reduced its best-estimate prediction for warming over the next 30 years from 0.7 C°, equivalent to 2.33 C° per century, to just 0.4 C°, equivalent to only 1.33 C° per century.

Where did the models go wrong? After all, the greenhouse effect is real and measurable, so we should have expected some global warming over the past 17½ years.

One problem is that the models had greatly underestimated the capacity of natural variability to override the relatively weak warming signal from manmade CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

On the evidence here presented, it is evident that there has been no global warming for up to 25 years; that the IPCC has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years; that the satellite record confirms this; that the gap between the models’ prediction and observed reality is widening; that the IPCC itself has realized this and has reduced its near-term forecast of warming over the coming 30 years from 0.7 C° to 0.4 C°; that the IPCC’s models have greatly underestimated the cooling effect of a combination of natural influences offsetting the warming that might otherwise have been expected in response to the growing concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases; that the models are unable to constrain the numerous uncertainties in the underlying mathematics of climate to within an interval narrow enough to permit reliable climate prediction; and that, even if the models were not thus hindered by unconstrainable uncertainties, the chaotic behavior of the climate, viewed as a mathematical object, is such as to render the reliable, very-long-term prediction of future climate states altogether beyond our powers.

How, then, will those who have made their careers by presenting climate change as though it were a grave, manmade crisis respond as temperatures – though they may well be higher at the end of this century than at the beginning – fail to rise either at anything like the rate predicted or to anything like the absolute value predicted?

There has been much intellectual dishonesty on the extremist side of the climate debate. Therefore, some scientists in the hard-line camp may well be tempted to press for immediate and savage cuts in CO2 emissions, so that they can claim – quite falsely – that the continuing failure of the planet to warm (for even they can see it will not warm by much) is the result of the costly mitigation measures they had advocated, rather than what would have happened anyway.