In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).
Because the IPCC recognises the hiatus.
Anyways, the myth that global warming stopped has been debunked many times.
A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future
When announcing the annual World Meteorological Organisation climate report in March 2014, the WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said that there had been no pause, with 2013 continuing a long-term warming trend showing "no standstill in global warming". 2013 had been the sixth warmest year on record, and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record had occurred since the start of 2000
So the UK Royal Society, US National Academy and World Meteorological Organisation is denying the IPCC AR5?
18 years is not long enough. Also, it only works when you start in 1998 because it was a very hot year. But 2014 was even hotter, so it is wrong to say there has been no warming during those 18 years.
It wasn't started in 1997, it was started at the present and worked back as far as you could go without showing additional warming.
1. The basic premise of Global Warming is adding CO2 increases Earth surface air temperatures,
2. Ben Santer said it takes 30 years to show an anthropogenic climatic signal,
each year that passes without additional warming casts increasing doubt on the GCMs future predictions; it will be difficult for the temperatures to increase fast enough to get bach on track for the predictions.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
Some people would consider saying something that they were only 38% sure of to be lying.
Would you rather the RSS data showing 18 years of no warming instead?
regardless of why, the UAH data showed April 2015 had a temperature anomaly of 0.07C, it's hard for people to get excited over hundredths of a degree. They said the world comes to an end when we get to 2C and we're at 0.07C, I'm not impressed.
The funding for the CRU, Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglica has a fair amount of Big-Oil/Big-Energy Funding
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DoE, 1970-1997), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1997-2001), Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2001-present), Department of Energy and Climatic Change (DECC), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Earth and Life Sciences Alliance, Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greater London Authority, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Assembly for Wales, National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, SQW Consulting, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, Tyndall Centre, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) History of the Climatic Research Unit
the temperature anomaly for April 2015 is 0.07C; we have to see some crazy hot temps to get back on track for the temperature prediction form 20 years ago. If I were going to bet right now, seeing how quiet the sun has been in the last 2 cycles, I'd go with a Little Ice Age, before I'd go with another Medieval Warm period!
Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, like Al Gore did for "An Inconvenient Truth", very different from the other Nobel Prizes ; rather ironic considering we've been at constant war during his administration.
On the contrary, the climate models are exceedingly accurate, but they are simply wrong and have no predictive value; people often confuse accuracy with error.
One thing holds true, the planet can only support so much life before the life destroys the planet. That is just basic science. While we may not be there, it isn't unconceivable that we could be approaching that. Exponential growth of a species leads to such sudden crashes into proverbial Brick Walls.
Climate is just an easy way to relay the dangers to people who are self-absorbed (most of society). YOU WON"T BE ABLE TO BREATHE or FIND FOOD.. "Oh, I see now, that would be bad, right?"
So your admitting as far as your concerned, Apocalyptic Global Warming Scaremongering is just a guise to get the sheeple to go into lemming-mote and rush over the clift into the abyse as a sacrifice to Gaia?
It means a lot that the Earth is warming and that human activity is the cause.
Yes it is and the most significant human activity causing the past warming is urbanization around formerly rural ground weather stations stations, Even with Urbanization April, 2015: was http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...">+0.07 deg. C warmer, so warming is pretty much in the past tense, even with a weak El Nino.
It means a lot that the Earth is warming and that human activity is the cause.
Yes it is and the most significant human activity causing the past warming is urbanization around formerly rural ground weather stations stations, Even with Urbanization April, 2015: was http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...">+0.07 deg. C warmer, so warming is pretty much in the past tense, even with a weak El Nino.
Lewandowsky's paper has been retracted by the publisher and has left the University he published from.
Simply show me one prediction from the GCMs that's more that 15 years, half a climatic era, that has remotely came true. You can't do it because there are no models that will work without massive parametrization; it would take them a century to actually computer the model for a 10 year time frame. Even the IPCC AR5 shows present temperatures outside the 95% confidence band for even the most conservative model runs.
Freeman Dyson also doesn't understand gravity (no one does). But that doesn't mean some vague claims can't be made about the two -- "heavy objects hurt when they fall on your foot" isn't a rigorous scientific statement, but it is true, as is his (vague) quote above.
Well to be perfectly honest the heavy object isn't heavy while it's in freefall and it doesn't actually fall on your foot, it merely gets close enough for the repulsion of negative charges of the electrons in the object and negative charges of the electrons in your foot is enough to cancel out the kinectic energy difference between the object and your foot; still hurts though.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
