It took them 15 years to notice it: CO2 is not driving the climate.
German online daily Hamburger Abendblatt here has a story titled: Global Warming Takes A Break, citing the leaked copy of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, which is due to be released in September, 2013. The Hamburger Abendblatt writes (emphasis aded):
The preliminary text is very clear that the global temperature increase does not follow the continuous rise of CO2 emissions. That’s water on the water-wheel of climate skeptics, who argue that it is more the impacts of the sun that warm the Earth, and greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, less so.”
The Hamburger Abendblatt asks:
Just how reliable are computer simulations that, although they correctly predicted the CO2 increase of the last 15 years, were completely off with the temperature development?”
Global temperatures have stagnated since the new millennium began. To answer that question, the German daily asks (alarmist) professor Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute für Meteorology in Hamburg. He told the Abendblatt: “Such plateaus also show up in our models. In such periods heat is absorbed more by the depths of the oceans. We can’t explain why this is so.”
Maybe plateaus do show up in the models here and there. But none of the models showed a plateau for the last 15 years.
Marotzke then insists that the record low Arctic sea ice extent measured last summer shows that things are heating up. Yet, strangely, he develops amnesia when it come to the Antarctic record high sea ice extent recorded last fall.
The Abendblatt also writes that Marotzke is also annoyed that the IPCC AR5 draft was released prematurely, claiming that “it didn’t belong in public” and that “It is like stealing an unfinished car from the factory and then complaining that it is not complete.”
Marotzke adds:
Anyone who signs up via the Internet and says he is an expert participates in the process. He only has to name 5 publications, which however are not assessed by the IPCC. We simply expect the information to be true. This openness makes us vulnerable.”
Concerning his “unfinished car” analogy, I think here Marotzke is saying that they forgot to put on the hood to hide the fact that the car doesn’t have, and never will have, a CO2 engine.
Donna notes in her comments to WUWT on the release of the draft IPCC AR5 via a whistleblower that, “Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” [the IPCC] recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.”
Dr. Marotzke: Is this science? And you state that, “We just simply expect the information to be true…” Tell me again—is this science? No fact checking, no peer review, no verification?
Thank God the Hamburger Abendblatt is now asking critical questions. Would that every media outlet do the same for this unconscionable scam.
Shamd, shame, shame!
Co2 is the gas of life and most of it can be found in those places where the biomass is the biggest: http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html
“Climate model forecast is revised”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
In my view slightly missleading “average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017”. It doesn’t specify but that is 0.43 above the 1971-2000 average, that would be no change then.
In effect no increase in global temperatures over the 20 year period starting in 1997…
Did I read correctly? That the climate mafia is now claiming, as evidence of their competence, that their models successfully predicted the rise in CO2 over the past 16 years? Was there ever any doubt that the people who drove cars to work in 1996 also drove cars to work in 2012? Was there ever any doubt that the continued growth of the Chinese economy would produce easily predicted emission outcomes? Of course not. But this is the nearest thing to an actual achievement they can point to. And surprise, surprise, it is an entirely bogus one.
We simply expect the information to be true. This openness makes us vulnerable.
Vulnerable? If the reports hold the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth why on earth would he use the term ‘Vulnerable’?
“Such plateaus also show up in our models.”
Never seen any. With KNMI site, you can run whatever model for whatever part of the world, and ALL OF THEM SHOW EXPONENTIAL RISE EVERYWHERE.
Marotzke:
““Such plateaus also show up in our models. In such periods heat is absorbed more by the depths of the oceans. We can’t explain why this is so.””
Then maybe we should stop asking the lavishly funded bureaucrat scientist stand-ins such complicated questions so they can concentrate on getting their next report cleaned up; i think they still have quite a lot of stuff to sweep under the rug.
They have busy schedules. They constantly need to travel from one tax payer funded congress to the next, not to mention the EU funded prices they need to collect for their efforts of saving the planet.
Have mercy. Rent seeking is hard labour.
Nobody has ever offered a more succinct indictment of the global warming hoax than H. L. Mencken, who said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
F. Swemson
The strategy is usually called “Pressure From Above and Pressure From Below”; first known mention in a book by Colonel House, political advisor (and puppetmaster) of Woodrow Wilson,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_House
House himself was controlled by JP Morgan and the other oligarchs of the time.