As the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate gets ever more heated and desperate it is worth perhaps commenting on the oft-used derogatory term ‘Climate Denier’ and its place in the global discussion. Commonly used to describe people who refuse to accept the scientific community’s belief that climate change is human driven and heading for disaster, this label is about to be turned on its head and come home to roost on the vitriolic heads of those who have thrown it around so carelessly.

As the years have gone by, the climate has steadfastly refused to toe the IPCC line of imminent disaster and has instead done what it has always done - normal climatic conditions interspersed with regular droughts, floods and storms. In other words, a normal day on planet earth.

One of the most telling events in this debate occurred in 2012 when a newspaper journalist reported that the UK METs data revealed that there had been ‘no statistically significant increase in temperature for 16 years’.  He provided a graph based on their own data and probably had good reason to think he had discovered something important.  What he didn’t realise is that he had actually discovered who real Climate Deniers are. The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause, despite their own data saying the exact opposite. This went on for about a year before the MET quietly accepted the indisputable truth of their own data and started putting articles online that ‘explained the pause’.  But the damage was already done. People were already seeing that supposedly intelligent scientists were following an agenda and not the science. The climate was saying one thing, but they were saying another.  They were in essence, Climate Deniers - the very term they had used so disparagingly for years.

And so as the earth refuses to warm and the shreaking cries of those defying the observations of a thoroughly disinterested natural climate grow louder and sillier, the term Climate Denier has found a new home, on the heads of ACC evangelists everywhere.

Climate Denier: a person who refuses to accept what the natural climate is doing and instead presumes a hidden agenda based on faulty data and preconceived beliefs. Also known as a religion.

enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D

AKA...apostles of the climate church (Eco-socialists)

Have you got any evidence to back up your opinion?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause

Source please.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please.

There ya go.... ;)

http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/Content/ProductImages/big/702142.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

As the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate gets ever more heated and desperate it is worth perhaps commenting on the oft-used derogatory term ‘Climate Denier’ and its place in the global discussion. Commonly used to describe people who refuse to accept the scientific community’s belief that climate change is human driven and heading for disaster, this label is about to be turned on its head and come home to roost on the vitriolic heads of those who have thrown it around so carelessly. As the years have gone by, the climate has steadfastly refused to toe the IPCC line of imminent disaster and has instead done what it has always done - normal climatic conditions interspersed with regular droughts, floods and storms. In other words, a normal day on planet earth. One of the most telling events in this debate occurred in 2012 when a newspaper journalist reported that the UK METs data revealed that there had been ‘no statistically significant increase in temperature for 16 years’.  He provided a graph based on their own data and probably had good reason to think he had discovered something important.  What he didn’t realise is that he had actually discovered who real Climate Deniers are. The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause, despite their own data saying the exact opposite. This went on for about a year before the MET quietly accepted the indisputable truth of their own data and started putting articles online that ‘explained the pause’.  But the damage was already done. People were already seeing that supposedly intelligent scientists were following an agenda and not the science. The climate was saying one thing, but they were saying another.  They were in essence, Climate Deniers - the very term they had used so disparagingly for years. And so as the earth refuses to warm and the shreaking cries of those defying the observations of a thoroughly disinterested natural climate grow louder and sillier, the term Climate Denier has found a new home, on the heads of ACC evangelists everywhere. Climate Denier: a person who refuses to accept what the natural climate is doing and instead presumes a hidden agenda based on faulty data and preconceived beliefs. Also known as a religion.

http://doughboytoironman.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tin_foil_hat.gif

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please.

go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause'

Bam wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: As the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate gets ever more heated and desperate it is worth perhaps commenting on the oft-used derogatory term ‘Climate Denier’ and its place in the global discussion. Commonly used to describe people who refuse to accept the scientific community’s belief that climate change is human driven and heading for disaster, this label is about to be turned on its head and come home to roost on the vitriolic heads of those who have thrown it around so carelessly. As the years have gone by, the climate has steadfastly refused to toe the IPCC line of imminent disaster and has instead done what it has always done - normal climatic conditions interspersed with regular droughts, floods and storms. In other words, a normal day on planet earth. One of the most telling events in this debate occurred in 2012 when a newspaper journalist reported that the UK METs data revealed that there had been ‘no statistically significant increase in temperature for 16 years’.  He provided a graph based on their own data and probably had good reason to think he had discovered something important.  What he didn’t realise is that he had actually discovered who real Climate Deniers are. The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause, despite their own data saying the exact opposite. This went on for about a year before the MET quietly accepted the indisputable truth of their own data and started putting articles online that ‘explained the pause’.  But the damage was already done. People were already seeing that supposedly intelligent scientists were following an agenda and not the science. The climate was saying one thing, but they were saying another.  They were in essence, Climate Deniers - the very term they had used so disparagingly for years. And so as the earth refuses to warm and the shreaking cries of those defying the observations of a thoroughly disinterested natural climate grow louder and sillier, the term Climate Denier has found a new home, on the heads of ACC evangelists everywhere. Climate Denier: a person who refuses to accept what the natural climate is doing and instead presumes a hidden agenda based on faulty data and preconceived beliefs. Also known as a religion. http://doughboytoironman.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tin_foil_hat.gif

it might be a more impressive argument if u actually debated the points

What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D

How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please.

A newspaper hack, because in longliars eyes hacks know more than scientists.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D

and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts.

skippy. wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please. A newspaper hack, because in longliars eyes hacks know more than scientists.

MET website boofhead.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts.

evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history

Quote:

In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

FAIL ONE Inability to grasp (as near as it gets) consensus on climate change science FAIL TWO Inability to embrace universally accepted definition of "climate denier"

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please. go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause'

Thanks Longy - I found an interesting article titled "The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes?"

But my question was about your claim that the MET office insisted "there was no pause". You are just confirming that they acknowledged the pause - or in other words the exact opposite of what you claimed.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely.

in case you haven't realised but over the years, more and more people have become disenchanted with the ACC hysteria - including scientists.  and where is this evidence that proves it?  DOESNT EXIST.  there has been not one single instance of a climate condition going outside the normal range.  there has not even been a TREND towards that happening. at some point or other there needs to be less predictive failure and more demonstrable evidence.  At the moment everything has been a failure.  even the antarctic is increasing its ice mass and the arctic simply refuses to melt as has been long predicted.

observation is superior to prediction.  if a prediction fails then it was wrong.  that is even hard for a climate hysteric to debunk.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:46am: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please. go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause' Thanks Longy - I found an interesting article titled "The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes?" But my question was about your claim that the MET office insisted "there was no pause". You are just confirming that they acknowledged the pause - or in other words the exact opposite of what you claimed.

for around a year after the newpaper claim that there was no pause they furiously denied it and it went on and on and was rather embarrassing since it was their own data and it was as obvious as the nose on your face.  it wasn't the data that was interesting but rather the response to it.  the truth was ironically INCONVENIENT and they refused to accept it.  so how do we trust them now since we already know they deliberately misinterpret data?

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 10:03am: FAIL ONE Inability to grasp (as near as it gets) consensus on climate change science FAIL TWO Inability to embrace universally accepted definition of "climate denier"

we are CHANGING the definition Buzzard.  the climate deniers now are bozos like you who pretend something is happening that actually isn't.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:58pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 10:03am: FAIL ONE Inability to grasp (as near as it gets) consensus on climate change science FAIL TWO Inability to embrace universally accepted definition of "climate denier" we are CHANGING the definition Buzzard.

http://media.giphy.com/media/NHxHjzlvjEwrC/giphy.gif



If re-writing your own personal dictionary is your best path to self-validation
- and feeling better about yourself -
I'd say GO for it !

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. in case you haven't realised but over the years, more and more people have become disenchanted with the ACC hysteria - including scientists.  and where is this evidence that proves it?  DOESNT EXIST.  there has been not one single instance of a climate condition going outside the normal range.  there has not even been a TREND towards that happening. at some point or other there needs to be less predictive failure and more demonstrable evidence.  At the moment everything has been a failure.  even the antarctic is increasing its ice mass and the arctic simply refuses to melt as has been long predicted. observation is superior to prediction.  if a prediction fails then it was wrong.  that is even hard for a climate hysteric to debunk.

Antarctic is increasing its ice mass in areas where it shouldn't be,  while the arctic is melting, which shows a change in the climate conditions. It helps to read before making your stupid arguments:
http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-paradox-of-increasing-antarctic-sea-ice-really-telling-us-27503

Keep avoiding science and believing in fairy tales. You're clearly good it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. in case you haven't realised but over the years, more and more people have become disenchanted with the ACC hysteria - including scientists.  and where is this evidence that proves it?  DOESNT EXIST.  there has been not one single instance of a climate condition going outside the normal range.  there has not even been a TREND towards that happening. at some point or other there needs to be less predictive failure and more demonstrable evidence.  At the moment everything has been a failure.  even the antarctic is increasing its ice mass and the arctic simply refuses to melt as has been long predicted. observation is superior to prediction.  if a prediction fails then it was wrong.  that is even hard for a climate hysteric to debunk. Antarctic is increasing its ice mass in areas where it shouldn't be,  while the arctic is melting, which shows a change in the climate conditions. It helps to read before making your stupid arguments: http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-paradox-of-increasing-antarctic-sea-ice-really-telling-us-27503 Keep avoiding science and believing in fairy tales. You're clearly good it.

so you see antarctic ice INCREASING and just say 'whatever' but when arctic ice retreats some... CLIMATE CHANGE ALERT!!!!  (forget the gigantic undersea volcano right beneath it).  This is kinda the point I am making.  any eveidence that discredits ACC is automatically ignored while anything that may support it is blindly repeated with little regard for its accuracy.

sounds like you are a climate denier too!!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely.

I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted?

So many warmists there are in Australia. It's obviously a lot easier to sell the "global warming" lie in a hot country like Australia.  ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 4:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. in case you haven't realised but over the years, more and more people have become disenchanted with the ACC hysteria - including scientists.  and where is this evidence that proves it?  DOESNT EXIST.  there has been not one single instance of a climate condition going outside the normal range.  there has not even been a TREND towards that happening. at some point or other there needs to be less predictive failure and more demonstrable evidence.  At the moment everything has been a failure.  even the antarctic is increasing its ice mass and the arctic simply refuses to melt as has been long predicted. observation is superior to prediction.  if a prediction fails then it was wrong.  that is even hard for a climate hysteric to debunk. Antarctic is increasing its ice mass in areas where it shouldn't be,  while the arctic is melting, which shows a change in the climate conditions. It helps to read before making your stupid arguments: http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-paradox-of-increasing-antarctic-sea-ice-really-telling-us-27503 Keep avoiding science and believing in fairy tales. You're clearly good it. so you see antarctic ice INCREASING and just say 'whatever' but when arctic ice retreats some... CLIMATE CHANGE ALERT!!!!  (forget the gigantic undersea volcano right beneath it).  This is kinda the point I am making.  any eveidence that discredits ACC is automatically ignored while anything that may support it is blindly repeated with little regard for its accuracy. sounds like you are a climate denier too!!!

Did you read the article? ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted?

The very fact that ice is increasing in Antarctica and melting in the arctic is evidence; evidence you choose to ignore.  What is it with you jebus worshipper a and your faith in fables but complete ignorance to science?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 6:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted? The very fact that ice is increasing in Antarctica and melting in the arctic is evidence; evidence you choose to ignore.  What is it with you jebus worshipper a and your faith in fables but complete ignorance to science?

Since this is not the first time in history that the Arctic has been ice-free, how is it 'outside of historical norms'?

All the evidence of AGW has created the information for the models. FAIL. The models are wrong therefore the science that gives them the information to create the models is wrong.

AGW pseudo science is empirically proven wrong.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 5:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 4:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. in case you haven't realised but over the years, more and more people have become disenchanted with the ACC hysteria - including scientists.  and where is this evidence that proves it?  DOESNT EXIST.  there has been not one single instance of a climate condition going outside the normal range.  there has not even been a TREND towards that happening. at some point or other there needs to be less predictive failure and more demonstrable evidence.  At the moment everything has been a failure.  even the antarctic is increasing its ice mass and the arctic simply refuses to melt as has been long predicted. observation is superior to prediction.  if a prediction fails then it was wrong.  that is even hard for a climate hysteric to debunk. Antarctic is increasing its ice mass in areas where it shouldn't be,  while the arctic is melting, which shows a change in the climate conditions. It helps to read before making your stupid arguments: http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-paradox-of-increasing-antarctic-sea-ice-really-telling-us-27503 Keep avoiding science and believing in fairy tales. You're clearly good it. so you see antarctic ice INCREASING and just say 'whatever' but when arctic ice retreats some... CLIMATE CHANGE ALERT!!!!  (forget the gigantic undersea volcano right beneath it).  This is kinda the point I am making.  any eveidence that discredits ACC is automatically ignored while anything that may support it is blindly repeated with little regard for its accuracy. sounds like you are a climate denier too!!! Did you read the article? ;D

I did and it wasn't exactly waving the ACC flag now, was it?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 6:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted? The very fact that ice is increasing in Antarctica and melting in the arctic is evidence; evidence you choose to ignore.  What is it with you jebus worshipper a and your faith in fables but complete ignorance to science?

but evidence of WHAT???  global warming?  well only if it warms everywhere and not the convenient bits.    climat changes and no one ignores that but it also changes withing bounds and none of those bounds have been breached or even close to it.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 6:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 6:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:06pm: What did CSIRO say recently? Was it 99.99% certainty ?  Continue to be the 0.01% longie ;D How's jebus going? I'm sure he can ask Noah to build us a new ark as a solution to climate change ;D and what a joke that was!!    you cant be 99.999% sure the moon landings happened because in that 1 in 100,000 chance exists the possibility it was all faked.  now, no body with a brain believes it was faked as the evidence is overwhelming.  but to grant that level of certainty to climate change where the evidence is almost non-existant is an indication of just how desperate they are to generate belief in the absence of actual facts. evidence is almost non existent you say? ;D  Amazing how you refuse to accept any evidence of climate change and claim that all scientists are in some massive conspiracy theory, including the CSIRO, but when it comes to Jebus you're completely convinced.  That tells enough to discredit you entirely. I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted? The very fact that ice is increasing in Antarctica and melting in the arctic is evidence; evidence you choose to ignore.  What is it with you jebus worshipper a and your faith in fables but complete ignorance to science? but evidence of WHAT???  global warming?  well only if it warms everywhere and not the convenient bits.    climat changes and no one ignores that but it also changes withing bounds and none of those bounds have been breached or even close to it.

You clearly did not read the article, or conveniently chose to skip the parts you don't agree with.  The very fact that ice is increasing in different areas of Antarctica  to the norm is evidence of warmer patterns in different parts; hence climate change.  And ice melting in the arctic is self explanatory.

This convenient ignorance you possess is not helping you.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf

your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped.

we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard

I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.

its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000.

half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome.

Arctic sea ice

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Within 2 std dev of norm.

The reason behind 2012 ice loss?

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html

Arctic Sea Ice in the 1960's - before AGW

'In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said. '


http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html

Holes when none were postulated, storms damage Arctic Sea ice- Who woudda thunk?

In the long term (millions of years) the planet is cooling down. Every proper scientist/astronomist knows that. The sun is cooling down too. It's burning out. It will be burned out one day. And the Earth once was pure hot gas, then it cooled down, that's why there is a "crust" today, which we call land. In the inside it's still hot gas but it slowly continues to harden until one day it's all hard, lifeless, cold and dead.

Global warming is a ridiculous fantasy. The global bankers only laugh at people who believe that bullshit. A great way for the bankers to tax people/nations. Bankers are very interested in taxes, because taxes pay off the billions of dollars of interest from national debts...The global bankers are the creditors of the national debts of all nations. Too complex for most people, that's why the lie works so well... ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 11:53am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.  its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome.

If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998.

Yep. Makes sense.
:D :D :D :D :D

Measuring the temperature for a few decades doesn't tell you ANYTHING. It would be like snorkeling in your backyard swimming pool and trying to measure how much water there is on planet Earth. It's ridiculous.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 11:53am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.  its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998. Yep. Makes sense. :D :D :D :D :D

do you specialise in being obtuse?  the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming.  It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:46am: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please. go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause' Thanks Longy - I found an interesting article titled "The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes?" But my question was about your claim that the MET office insisted "there was no pause". You are just confirming that they acknowledged the pause - or in other words the exact opposite of what you claimed. for around a year after the newpaper claim that there was no pause they furiously denied it and it went on and on and was rather embarrassing since it was their own data and it was as obvious as the nose on your face.  it wasn't the data that was interesting but rather the response to it.  the truth was ironically INCONVENIENT and they refused to accept it.  so how do we trust them now since we already know they deliberately misinterpret data?

Yes, Longy, we are back to square one.

That was the original claim you made and which I asked you to back up. Thats when you pointed me towards the MET article that directly contradicted your claim.

So I ask again, what is your basis for saying the MET office "furiously denied" that there was a pause in warming?

I think you know where I am going with this - there was no "furious denial", and there was no "embarassing" backpeddling by the MET office that would be consistent with them being the bumbling fools (or sinnister conspirators - take your pick) you are portraying them as. Their responses to the "pause" have been entirely consistent.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts

8 January 2013 - There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction, which is routinely updated in December each year.

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system through knowledge of the current climate state and multi-year variability of the oceans.

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 3:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:46am: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 11:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause Source please. go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause' Thanks Longy - I found an interesting article titled "The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes?" But my question was about your claim that the MET office insisted "there was no pause". You are just confirming that they acknowledged the pause - or in other words the exact opposite of what you claimed. for around a year after the newpaper claim that there was no pause they furiously denied it and it went on and on and was rather embarrassing since it was their own data and it was as obvious as the nose on your face.  it wasn't the data that was interesting but rather the response to it.  the truth was ironically INCONVENIENT and they refused to accept it.  so how do we trust them now since we already know they deliberately misinterpret data? Yes, Longy, we are back to square one. That was the original claim you made and which I asked you to back up. Thats when you pointed me towards the MET article that directly contradicted your claim. So I ask again, what is your basis for saying the MET office "furiously denied" that there was a pause in warming? I think you know where I am going with this - there was no "furious denial", and there was no "embarassing" backpeddling by the MET office that would be consistent with them being the bumbling fools (or sinnister conspirators - take your pick) you are portraying them as. Their responses to the "pause" have been entirely consistent.

you wont find 'furious denial' on their website because that has long since been removed.  but why don't you ask Buzzard to repeat YET AGAIN his quotes of the MET doing just that.  he repeats it regularly until just recently when even his one-eyed brain was able to work out that the MET had retracted.

I am not going to regurgitate it all for you just because you cant remember the storm it caused less than 2 years ago.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

you wont find 'furious denial' on their website because that has long since been removed.

Right. This despite you telling me in this very thread to go to their site to find those very same "since been removed" furious denials  ;D ;D

You are a treasure Longy. Keep it up.

For context, this is the "furious denial" Longy is referring to:


Quote:

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.” The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.” The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Note particularly the response to question 2 - where the pause is specifically acknowledged and said to be consistent with simulations.

This is Longy's great "furious denial" of a pause  :P

The "embarassing" backpedaling is allegedly in the report Longy pointed me too earlier. It discusses possible explanations of the "recent pause" in surface warming.

As anyone who has read the report would know, it is entirely consistent with what the MET claimed a year earlier to the daily fail reporter. Most importantly, the report does NOT acknowledge any pause in overall global warming - only the pause in surface temperature rise - which as anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate science will explain, constitutes only a tiny fraction of overall global heat content.

Hence as the report states:


Quote:

It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet. Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases has continued unabated

radiative forcing by greenhouse gases has continued unabated....

exactly as they had claimed to the mail reporter.

Hint for those having difficulty grasping basic climate science: pause in global surface warming is *NOT* the same as a pause in overall net global warming.

I'm sorry for your confusion Longy, hope this clears things up for you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 3:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 3:29pm: you wont find 'furious denial' on their website because that has long since been removed. Right. This despite you telling me in this very thread to go to their site to find those very same "since been removed" furious denials  ;D ;D You are a treasure Longy. Keep it up.

one frustration in places like this is people with the memory of a gold fish.  it was only two years ago that this was headline news and a furious level of discussion in this very forum.  the MET denied that their data showed a pause in warming and the usual suspects agreed with them.  they have since bowed to the inevitable aka the truth. if you don't remember or are unable to understand why these former denials are no long on their website then good luck to you

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 1:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 11:53am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.  its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998. Yep. Makes sense. :D :D :D :D :D do you specialise in being obtuse?  the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming.  It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing.

Thank heavens I don't attend your "seminars." This statistic is a statistic which is independent of anything to do with the "supposed" halt in warming. It clearly shows that the average global temperatures have increased, does it not?

'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1

Paper
'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,'

'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.'

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction

3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure.

Or perhaps

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png

Text

'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  '

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 1:18pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 11:53am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.  its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998. Yep. Makes sense. :D :D :D :D :D do you specialise in being obtuse?  the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming.  It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing. Thank heavens I don't attend your "seminars." This statistic is a statistic which is independent of anything to do with the "supposed" halt in warming. It clearly shows that the average global temperatures have increased, does it not?

and if you use the average over ONE year and not ten what then???  guess what it shows that there was a small rise and then NO RISE.  how can that be?  because averaging any data is a form of manipulation.  whether it is valid or invalid, right or wrong, is the question you should ask a bit more often rather than simply accept information you LIKE rather than information that is correct.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 1:18pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 11:53am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: enjoy...  ;D ;D ;D longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history Quote: In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation..  the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme.  its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998.  this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000??  I wonder why?  no I don't and nor should you.  If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation.  that's why I like to see raw data.  more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998. Yep. Makes sense. :D :D :D :D :D do you specialise in being obtuse?  the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming.  It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing. Thank heavens I don't attend your "seminars." This statistic is a statistic which is independent of anything to do with the "supposed" halt in warming. It clearly shows that the average global temperatures have increased, does it not? and if you use the average over ONE year and not ten what then???  guess what it shows that there was a small rise and then NO RISE.  how can that be?  because averaging any data is a form of manipulation.  whether it is valid or invalid, right or wrong, is the question you should ask a bit more often rather than simply accept information you LIKE rather than information that is correct.

Right so now we're looking at it year on year only. Ok.  YOu ever heard of trends? THe point being that of course we look at trends, or averages, because it is through averages that we can tell whether something is happening or not. Not based on year on year, as you are suggesting.

Keep with your massive conspiracy, and keep believing in fables. It makes perfect sense as to why you choose to be so ignorant about this.

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate

an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:18pm: 'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable.

why do you have to deflect from the topic?  there has been a 17year pause in global warming.  the most interesting point has been the stubborn refusal of so-called experts to accept it as fact despite the evidence being overwhelming.  what does that tell you about their intellectual integrity and their preconceived notions?  try dealing with that not inconsiderable issue.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 7:39pm: lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:18pm: 'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable. why do you have to deflect from the topic?  there has been a 17year pause in global warming.  the most interesting point has been the stubborn refusal of so-called experts to accept it as fact despite the evidence being overwhelming.  what does that tell you about their intellectual integrity and their preconceived notions?  try dealing with that not inconsiderable issue.

How is an article that provides an explanation from a scientist deflecting?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 5:27pm:

he MET denied that their data showed a pause in warming and the usual suspects agreed with them.

Then show me the denial.

Its patently obvious what is going on here -  you are speaking out of your arse because you don't understand a most elementary concept: namely that a pause in global surface warming does not equal a pause in total global warming. Because all the MET have been saying all along is that 1. there is a pause in surface warming but 2. total global warming (of which surface warming is only a tiny component) continues unabated. Its all there in the relevant MET papers/statements. You can't produce any claim by the MET that 1. surface warming has not paused or 2. total global warming paused at any time during the last 16 years - because no such claims exist.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 7:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 7:39pm: lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:18pm: 'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable. why do you have to deflect from the topic?  there has been a 17year pause in global warming.  the most interesting point has been the stubborn refusal of so-called experts to accept it as fact despite the evidence being overwhelming.  what does that tell you about their intellectual integrity and their preconceived notions?  try dealing with that not inconsiderable issue. How is an article that provides an explanation from a scientist deflecting?

because the topic is about climate deniers refusing to accept the verifiable fact that we aren't warming and how it impacts on their intellectual credibility.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 5:27pm: he MET denied that their data showed a pause in warming and the usual suspects agreed with them. Then show me the denial. Its patently obvious what is going on here -  you are speaking out of your arse because you don't understand a most elementary concept: namely that a pause in global surface warming does not equal a pause in total global warming. Because all the MET have been saying all along is that 1. there is a pause in surface warming but 2. total global warming (of which surface warming is only a tiny component) continues unabated. Its all there in the relevant MET papers/statements. You can't produce any claim by the MET that 1. surface warming has not paused or 2. total global warming paused at any time during the last 16 years - because no such claims exist.

im sorry you have the memory of a goldfish and the inability to find it yourself.  Ive have produced all this a dozen times before and you boofheads don't accept it - just like the MET didn't until forced to by the rather obvious fact that it is true.

the trouble is that clowns like you trumpet your ignorance as if it were some kind of virtue.  it isn't.  you are still a clown.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 8:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 7:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 7:39pm: lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:18pm: 'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable. why do you have to deflect from the topic?  there has been a 17year pause in global warming.  the most interesting point has been the stubborn refusal of so-called experts to accept it as fact despite the evidence being overwhelming.  what does that tell you about their intellectual integrity and their preconceived notions?  try dealing with that not inconsiderable issue. How is an article that provides an explanation from a scientist deflecting? because the topic is about climate deniers refusing to accept the verifiable fact that we aren't warming and how it impacts on their intellectual credibility.

and yet there have now been 2 examples that contradict this "verifiable fact" which you simply choose to ignore. Now...why is that?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

im sorry you have the memory of a goldfish and the inability to find it yourself.  Ive have produced all this a dozen times before and you boofheads don't accept it - just like the MET didn't until forced to by the rather obvious fact that it is true. the trouble is that clowns like you trumpet your ignorance as if it were some kind of virtue.  it isn't.  you are still a clown.

You've produced an acknowledgement from the MET office that a pause in the surface warming is occurring. What both you and Anthony Watts still fail to grasp is that this position is in no way inconsistent with their position that overall global warming has continued unabated. This perfectly consistent line was reiterated in the most simple English -  in both the "controversial" 2012 statements and the report on the pause in surface temps. To claim that the MET office at any time even suggested that total global warming has paused at any time in the last 2 decades is both baseless and laughable. Again, you can't produce the claim because the claim does not exist. And the fact that you point me towards a MET report about the pause in surface warming as an attempt to prove your claim just proves your fundamental misunderstanding of this point.

You don't even attempt to counter this very simple point of mine, and instead resort to childish name calling.

Classy as always Longy - keep it up.

Longy. Don't take the lollypop from the child.

Its all they have. If they allow the knowledge that this pause has invalidated their AGW, well, they could very well become normal people.

Pointing out the obvious to stupid people, the AGW nutters, is not healthy mentally.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2014 at 6:18pm: 'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus?commentpage=1 Paper 'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,' 'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.' https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction 3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure. Or perhaps http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png Text 'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  ' http://www.remss.com/research/climate an interesting article from the guardian. I'm sure longie will ignore it because it's not a fable.

Yes very interesting, Is that excuse number 52 or could this be 53

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

'“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

My bold. It seems indeed that this press release is missing. It is not in the archive.

let's all get vague and pretend copper internet is a bargain  :) :)

Where is Peter Costello for a comment when you need him?

<smirk>

:D :D