'As world leaders meet this week and next at a historic climate change summit in Paris, a new study by Michigan State University environmental scientists suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.

The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, finds that climate-change advocates are largely failing to influence public opinion. Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds – Republicans and Democrats alike – with messages denying the existence of global warming.'

'Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.

“That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. [url]“It’s extremely difficult to change the minds of people who oppose climate change, in part because they are so entrenched in their views[/url].” '

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/climate-change-foes-winning-public-opinion-war/

All of the authors are Sociologists, NOT environmental scientists.

Positive messages can change believers minds about climate change but not vice versa.

Sociologists of the world unite. We need gravy.

How can you “oppose” AGW? It is happening and we are causing it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:50pm:

How can you “oppose” AGW? It is happening and we are causing it.

Nope, (natural) climate change is happening, as it always has, and we 'might' possibly be adding to it, slightly.

That is just garbage!

AGW is happening now and we are causing it.

Proceed from here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 2:29pm:

That is just garbage! AGW is happening now and we are causing it. Proceed from here.

Prove it beyond doubt first...

I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it.

Leave it as this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter.
The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record.

So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures.

Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it. Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter. The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record. So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures. Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass!

And that is pure supposition.....unproven theory.

As for 2015 being the "hottest year on record"..so what, the 'record' only goes back 130 years or so.


All of which means, you can't actual find any solid proof to back up your personal belief that "AGW exists and we are causing it"??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:08pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:01pm: I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it. Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter. The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record. So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures. Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass! And that is pure supposition.....unproven theory. As for 2015 being the "hottest year on record"..so what, the 'record' only goes back 130 years or so. All of which means, you can't actual find any solid proof to back up your personal belief that "AGW exists and we are causing it"??

Gizmo doesn't even know what word 'proof' means.

;) ;)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 2:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 2:29pm: That is just garbage! AGW is happening now and we are causing it. Proceed from here. Prove it beyond doubt first...

To who?

;) ;) ;)

- gizmo knows bugger all about everything  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: How can you “oppose” AGW? It is happening and we are causing it. Nope, (natural) climate change is happening, as it always has, and we 'might' possibly be adding to it, slightly.

Let us all give the great gizmo three cheers for bringing his version of quantitative argument to the table!

8-) 8-) 8-)

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it. Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter. The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record. So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures. Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass!

And the earth isn't a greenhouse. There is no convection in a greenhouse.

I didn’t say the Earth was a greenhouse.

I said there was a greenhouse effect from higher and higher concentrations of CO2 (and methane, water (clouds) and nitrous oxide. . .) and there is, temperatures keep on rising. The man on the land knows that, he has had to change practises, the genetics of what he grows be it wheat or cattle. It is only frightened little boys in the cities, paralysed by fear of change, who try to deny it. Meh! Grown ups face the challenges coming their way.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:45pm:

I didn’t say the Earth was a greenhouse. I said there was a greenhouse effect from higher and higher concentrations of CO2 (and methane, water (clouds) and nitrous oxide. . .) and there is, temperatures keep on rising. The man on the land knows that, he has had to change practises, the genetics of what he grows be it wheat or cattle. It is only frightened little boys in the cities, paralysed by fear of change, who try to deny it. Meh! Grown ups face the challenges coming their way.

You mean the Greens???

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:45pm:

I didn’t say the Earth was a greenhouse. I said there was a greenhouse effect from higher and higher concentrations of CO2 (and methane, water (clouds) and nitrous oxide. . .) and there is, temperatures keep on rising.

Ah, A Clayton's greenhouse.

' and there is, temperatures keep on rising' - you do know correlation is not causation, don't you.

CO2 (etc) is a greenhouse gas. while we keep emitting CO2 etc into the atmosphere we are increasing the greenhouse effect.

Those who are scared of change say “No no, cannot be, I cannot change my way of life, I will just pretend it isn’t happening” but that is no way for an adult to be.

Are you an adult lee or a scared little pumpkin?

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:01pm: I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it. Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter. The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record. So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures. Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass! And the earth isn't a greenhouse. There is no convection in a greenhouse.

wtf!??!  :o :o

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:25pm:

Are you an adult lee or a scared little pumpkin?

I'm an adult - you're a Chicken Little.

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 4:45pm: I didn’t say the Earth was a greenhouse. I said there was a greenhouse effect from higher and higher concentrations of CO2 (and methane, water (clouds) and nitrous oxide. . .) and there is, temperatures keep on rising. Ah, A Clayton's greenhouse. ' and there is, temperatures keep on rising' - you do know correlation is not causation, don't you.

Correlation doesn't imply causation because the world isn't linear. Correlation still needs to exist in science or there is no impetus for further method to be employed for indeed there is nothing further to investigate!

You're really good at this propaganda stuff broseph  ::) ::) ::)

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 5:25pm: Are you an adult lee or a scared little pumpkin? I'm an adult - you're a Chicken Little.

Someones got a big daddy boot/complex on  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:01pm: I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it. Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter. The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record. So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures. Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass! And the earth isn't a greenhouse. There is no convection in a greenhouse.

actually there is plenty of convection "IN" a greenhouse - it's at the interface, ie the glass enclosure, where the heat escapes via conduction.

....a little bit like the earth's atmosphere where there is convection until you get to the top layer where convection decreases to essentially zero.

In any case, you need to look at the thermodynamics and energy transfer as a whole.

You should apologise for making Baking Soda type Dr Sircus clown comments in public....

and after you have published your written apology, you must implement a self banishment punishment.

http://www.cheekymonkeycomedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CM-LAUGHING-MONKEY.jpg

The CO2 we put into the atmosphere will eventually warm our planet
but not just yet -
first of all there will be a mini Ice Age.

Muslims are currently breeding like rats, white anglo saxons have stopped breeding altogether, in 100 years the white race will be extinct and the planet will be overun by muslims so who gives a friggin rats arse what sort of planet we leave for those spastics, they'll be too preoccupied with rape, murder, pedophilia and war to worry about the weather. 

innocentbystander. wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:16pm:

Muslims are currently breeding like rats, white anglo saxons have stopped breeding altogether, in 100 years the white race will be extinct and the planet will be overun by muslims so who gives a friggin rats arse what sort of planet we leave for those spastics, they'll be too preoccupied with rape, murder, pedophilia and war to worry about the weather.

the white race??

what do you mean you flowering maggot puppet clown?

It's best if you apologise and then self ban for 48 hours to gather your thoughts.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 9:49pm:

The CO2 we put into the atmosphere will eventually warm our planet but not just yet - first of all there will be a mini Ice Age.

By how much will the Earth's average temperature decrease during this mini Ice Age and how long will this little mini Ice Age of yours last for Jethro?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1d/6f/81/1d6f815f95f6d68abaad846ddc9d086d.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:31pm:

By how much will the Earth's average temperature decrease during this mini Ice Age

Depends on who is cooking the books. Karl et al or a new improved version, from elsewhere.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:31pm: By how much will the Earth's average temperature decrease during this mini Ice Age Depends on who is cooking the books. Karl et al or a new improved version, from elsewhere.

By about 0.6C..if it behaves the same as the last one..Which would basically  negate the warming since 1850ish..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

lee wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 11:01am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:31pm: By how much will the Earth's average temperature decrease during this mini Ice Age Depends on who is cooking the books. Karl et al or a new improved version, from elsewhere. By about 0.6C..if it behaves the same as the last one..Which would basically  negate the warming since 1850ish..

The Thames river in London was frozen solid during the Maunder minimum.

That is very cold.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it.

Good, now stop sh!tting yourself over the propaganda of the oligarchy who want to tax us plebs on the air we breath through their banks. Banks will run the carbon derivatives market.


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Leave it as this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Yes it is but it is also a trace gas which means that it exists in minute amounts at 0.04% of the atmosphere that's 0.0004 of the atmosphere.


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

It certainly contributes in some small way.

http://i66.tinypic.com/16jefcj.png


Quote:

The above figure is taken from an often cited paper, including by the IPCC, titled “Earth’s Annual Global Energy Budget” by Kiehl and Trenberth from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1997, with notations that we added. The top curve shows how the intensity of the average heat leaving the earth’s surface varies with infrared wavelength. The lower jagged curve is that leaving at the top of the atmosphere under average cloudy conditions. The area under a curve is its total heat in watts per square meter. Note the large downward notch leaving the atmosphere in the 12 to 18 microns range caused by CO2. It is such a strong absorber here that it cannot release its heat outward until the density of its molecules drops significantly at high altitudes where the temperature is about –60 F. Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further. The area of the CO2 notch below the dashed line is about 22 watts per square meter and represents the impact of the total CO2 given the existing clouds and water vapor. Doubling CO2, taking over 100 years at the current growth rate, would move the notch downward and increase the area by about 3.5 watts per square meter, or 16%. When the heat loss drops, since the net heat from the sun remains at 235, the atmosphere gains heat and warms about 1 degree C until its emissions rise back to 235, restoring balance. A warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss from the surface, and it also warms about 1 C. This is all that CO2 does. And very slowly. The feedback processes can increase or decrease this warming, as they do for any other temperature change http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/25/i-am-a-climate-skeptic-who-believes-in-global-warming/

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter.

That is an incorrect statement, temperature controls the amount of CO2 that gets released into our atmosphere, CO2 doesn't control temperature, it contributes in some small way and that's about it.

Here take a look at Earth's energy budget, watch from the 54 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0



Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record.

The Earth temperature fluctuates in cycles it goes up and it goes down, don't try and tell me that you think we can somehow controls this and have the temperature flatline....???...if you do think we can do this you are a person.

Today we have some of the lowest temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our history, and what goes down will go up, don't forget we are still coming our of a mini ice age.

http://i65.tinypic.com/29f837l.jpg


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures

.

No incorrect statement increasing CO2 contributes to global warming but CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth in all of our known history, even when it was 20 times more abundant at (7000 ppm)  in the atmosphere.

http://i64.tinypic.com/xaw01u.jpg


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass!

No fairy stories just cold hard facts...... :)

Ajax wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

No fairy stories just cold hard facts...... :)

More like misleading graphs and cherry picked data.

Your medieval warm period graph was doctored to remove the very important information that it is only Northern Hemisphere data. As I have pointed out in another thread the MWP was a European phenomenon, it wasn't global.

Once again you provided the CO2 / temperature graph which I have already discredited previously. It was doctored to have the very large error uncertainties removed and the time scale of 600 million years makes it completely useless.

last of all you repeat the "CO2 is only a trace gas" mantra, but fail to explain why this contradicts the scientific evidence that confirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing the concentration will increase the temperature.   

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50am:

As I have pointed out in another thread the MWP was a European phenomenon, it wasn't global.

You may want to do some research. Mediaeval Warm Period NewZealand,  Antarctica, Chile, Tasmania.

Merely because there is less evidence, because there is less landmass, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50am:

Ajax wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:40am: No fairy stories just cold hard facts...... :) More like misleading graphs and cherry picked data. Your medieval warm period graph was doctored to remove the very important information that it is only Northern Hemisphere data. As I have pointed out in another thread the MWP was a European phenomenon, it wasn't global. Once again you provided the CO2 / temperature graph which I have already discredited previously. It was doctored to have the very large error uncertainties removed and the time scale of 600 million years makes it completely useless. last of all you repeat the "CO2 is only a trace gas" mantra, but fail to explain why this contradicts the scientific evidence that confirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing the concentration will increase the temperature.

Quote:

‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/#ixzz3uouAN19s

Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Bobby. wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

The Thames river in London was frozen solid during the Maunder minimum. That is very cold.

Let me know if it ever happens again.

Here comes batman again with his fake graphs from Wattsupme.
The same ones every time.  ::)
No new arguments, just tired old refuted ones.

How much commission do you get for that?

One of the deniers said something like “MWP was hotter than now without melting polar ice and melting Greenland Ice Sheets.”

This led me to think there was something wrong with the MWP theory. If the MWP was a local phenomenon as it seems it was then that contradiction is explained.

Still waiting for Booby to describe  Maunder minimum and show how we are heading for one. I guess that theory is just hot air too.

All this denialism is a lost cause. The Chinese govt has seen the shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers and permafrost which feed the Yellow and other Chinese rivers (plus the Mekong and Ganges etc) and is taking action and will ensure other govts act to reduce GHG emissions.

Facts are funny things, they are not actually open to debate.

The sad thing about debating facts is that the facts seem to get lost in the desire to win a war of words...

It seems that both sides are equally happy with this situation.

Now, if those who disagree with AGW are correct with their version of facts we have nothing to be too worried about. I think that would be a reasonable thing to consider.

Of course, if those who agree with AGW are correct with their version of facts, then it would seem equally reasonable that we have a lot to be very worried about.

What is obvious -while the debate keeps on raging, no significant change is happening to our environmental damaging practices which, if we do nothing about, will at some point tip the scale (regardless of climate) and not in our favour.

We live in a closed system, therefore, the more shyte we pump in, the less efficient that closes system will be at sustaining us.

Carry on winning the public opinion war, because I am sure at the end of the day that will be some comfort when the facts come home to bite your faces off...

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 7:15am:

One of the deniers said something like “MWP was hotter than now without melting polar ice and melting Greenland Ice Sheets.”

I don't think I have ever seen that. Perhaps you could get the exact quote.



Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 7:15am:

If the MWP was a local phenomenon as it seems it was then that contradiction is explained.

Ignoring data from New Zealand, Antarctica, Chile, Tasmania? Or just that these were all local MWP events?

The church of the climate change evangelicals has converted David Attenborough to their religion now, he is now a born again climate change christian, its a big name to have brain washed, well done climate cranks  ;D

The whole Chinese govt has been “converted.”

Seems the retreat of the Himalayan icefield/permafrost has frightened all kinds of sh1t out the Politburo.

We will all have to toe the line soon or face green tariffs on Chinese imports/exports.

David Attenborough is still extremely sharp for his age (89).

He has a degree in Natural Sciences.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 7:25pm:

David Attenborough is still extremely sharp for his age (89). He has a degree in Natural Sciences.

He held out for while but if you live long enough we will all become idiot left climate cranks eventually, thanks to the ravages of senile dementia  :( 

innocentbystander. wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 8:20pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 7:25pm: David Attenborough is still extremely sharp for his age (89). He has a degree in Natural Sciences. He held out for while but if you live long enough we will all become idiot left climate cranks eventually, thanks to the ravages of senile dementia  :(

You mean like Arnie? It's not about politics. It also looks like the GOP in the US is haemorrhaging  over trying to sustain denialist lies.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/theres-an-emerging-right-wing-divide-on-climate-denial-heres-what-it-means-and-doesnt/

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:18am:

It's not about politics.

Tell that to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's all about politics.

The SPM, where the document is gone through line-byline, so that it conforms to what the politicians want.

This is then reflected back on to the underlying papers, so that they confirm SPM.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:41am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 8:18am: It's not about politics. Tell that to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's all about politics. The SPM, where the document is gone through line-byline, so that it conforms to what the politicians want. This is then reflected back on to the underlying papers, so that they confirm SPM.

You're talking about a dumbed down summary of the science?

John Taverner!

Since when did you become the Mod of this forum?????

:-? :-/

BTW - have you seen this?

'Recent trends in global mean surface air temperature fall outside the 90% range predicted by models using the CMIP5 forcings and scenarios; this recent period of muted warming is dubbed the "hiatus". The hiatus has attracted broad attention in both the popular press and the scientific literature, primarily because of its perceived implications for understanding long-term trends. Many hypotheses have been offered to explain the warming slowdown during the hiatus, and comprehensive studies of this period across multiple variables and spatial scales will likely improve our understanding of the physical mechanisms driving global temperature change and variability.

We argue, however, that decadal temperature trends by themselves are unlikely to constrain future trajectories of global mean temperature and that the hiatus does not significantly revise our understanding of overall climate sensitivity. Instead, we demonstrate that, because of the poorly constrained nature of the hiatus, model-observation disagreements over this period may be resolvable via uncertainties in the observations, modeled internal variability, forcing estimates, or (more likely) some combination of all three factors. We define the hiatus interval as 1998-2012, endpoints judiciously chosen to minimize observed warming by including the large 1998 El Niño event and excluding 2014, an exceptionally warm year. Such choices are fundamentally subjective and cannot be considered "random", so any probabilistic statements regarding the likelihood of this occurring need to be made carefully. Using this definition, the observed global temperature trend estimates from four datasets fall outside the 5-95% interval predicted by the CMIP5 models. Here we explore some of the plausible explanations for this discrepancy, and show that no unique explanation is likely to fully account for the hiatus.'

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma03110j.html

Seems like the hiatus is alive and well despite Karl et al.

Seems also that the models are not best, despite ealier headlines.

'Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models'

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-systematic-errors-climate.html

Oh and while you're at it....what are your views re climate change?

BBL.....need to attend to 5 little kids (got a few extra ones today thanks to a busy neighbour).

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 11:07am:

You're talking about a dumbed down summary of the science?

Yeah, the one interfered with by politicians that may not reflect the science.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 11:14am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 11:07am: You're talking about a dumbed down summary of the science? Yeah, the one interfered with by politicians that may not reflect the science.

I don't disagree with you, except that it usually ends up as an understated, watered down version, because politicians want to do as little as possible, especially if it means jeopardising their chances of re-election.

The problem is that the MSM reports the SPM as the science. Which completely screws the message. The mugs accept the SPM as gospel.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 9:48pm:

The problem is that the MSM reports the SPM as the science. Which completely screws the message. The mugs accept the SPM as gospel.

Give me an example of where you think the Summary "screws the message" given by the science.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:21am:

lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 9:48pm: The problem is that the MSM reports the SPM as the science. Which completely screws the message. The mugs accept the SPM as gospel. Give me an example of where you think the Summary "screws the message" given by the science.

Where in the SPM does it mention "hiatus"? A fact that caused at least one reader of this forum to trumpet that the IPCC had never said that there was an hiatus. For that matter the models never forecast an hiatus.

What about doubts about the climate models? In the report they used and expert judgement to determine the climate model output. Conclusion: the models were running too hot. Else the roars would have been "it is worse than we thought".  But somehow in spite of that their confidence in the models went from high to very high.