muso wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:



They just can't explain the hiatus/pause.

'Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

[A] “Yes, but only just”.'

' Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…” '

'Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012'

'Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” '

'Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….” '

Definitely CAGW. All this with increasing CO2. It says a lot about "committed" CO2 from the past.

'The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. '

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

lee wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 5:23pm:


Most of this is taken out of context. Is there a correlation between CO2 forcing and CO2 concentration? Yes - and it's as predicted.

Is the Net Forcing as predicted? No, because of the enormous net emission of Aerosols from China.

Is this net emission of aerosols likely to reduce? Yes. China is already taking some steps to reduce that by increasing acid gas scrubbing at the source(s).

muso wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 5:40pm:



Yes.

If only the disciples of AGW did.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:23pm:
Can you substantiate your assertion?

# wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:




You can play dumb all you want (and you're doing a superb job at it, by the way), however, the onus is on you to present credible, reliable scientific evidence to support your AGW hypothesis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:54am:


So in other words you are claiming that CO2 is NOT a by product of fossil fuel combustion and/or CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and/or a change in the earths temperature does NOT influence climate.

Interesting theory you have there Mr Greggy.

I assume that that you have enough credible, reliable scientific evidence to support your religious proclamation?

They want to sacrifice yet unborn embryos, with heat sterilisation

all in the name of their neurotic political fascist ideologies and deranged sense of immorality and ethical compass bastardry

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 11:47am:
Enough already! Last warning.