Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.Well then there are folks like me who need to see evidence. Funny stuff too, people see that as me thinking I know more than someone. Nope, it's me seeing what I see and saying, hmmm, name somewhere where weather is different today than 30 years ago. And.....no one can. so what is it I'm supposed to be afraid of and why do we need to spend money on something that doesn't exist.Yup, I often fail to understand other people's perceptions. Perhaps I am too insulated by having friends family and workmates all on the right side of the Bell curve.
Again, feel free to peruse all the evidence you'd like.
www.ipcc.ch
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
Absolutely. Working toward a degree at 71 years of age. Had to retake calculus, even though I had taken and passed all three quarters around 1970. Good thing, too. In the third quarter, we were doing Fouirer series and introduced to Fourier transforms. A friend of mine, a metalurgical engineer of the same age looked over what I was doing and stated they did not get any of that until they were in post graduate studies. Plus learning how to use a graphing calculator. What a magnificent tool. And I set there, going poke, poke, poke, while the kids fingers are flying over the keys. Generational differance.Generally, people are getting sma
generally, people are getting smarter over time.OK, I go to school with those kids. They are not fucking dummies. Yes, they show up tired, and sometimes nod off in class. No reason for that, just because they are working two jobs and trying to take two thirds load. You see, in Portland, Oregon, PCC's classes are 100+ a credit, and PSU's are twice that. And then there are books. $200 to $300 a whack. And there are only so many loans and scholarships to go around. Then there is the little matter of paying off the loans, that are often mortgage sized by the time school is finished.This is truly sickeningOur lives are so much better because of science...The human mind always seem to move back to simple idiocy and against our own best interest.
Sad.
How many billions of people are alive today because of the cures of the 18th, 19th and 20th century?
People are living higher quality lives that are much longer.
People can discuss things on the other side of the world.
The internet has all the knowledge to make one think this is impossible...Damn.
Time to get the govt OUT of the way so that science, technology, math can be revived by newer methods of education . Methods that are more likely to reach the MAJORITY of kids in schools. And the expectations have to be set higher. All the govt does is to set the FLOOR for the expectations and learning..
I've got enough optimism that I believe I could kidnap several hundred young Burger flippers and mall saleskids --- and turn them into chemical engineers. Or physicists. Or at least citizens that have a PRAYER of defending themselves against tech/science propaganda and think for themselves WITHOUT praying to authority...
The classes I have taken are all science and math. So I am talking about the people that we need and have jobs for. But between high school and that job is the cost of college.
Now you want to keep government out of education, Flacaltenn, so what is your solution to getting these kids in school, and keeping them there? How about the problem of a roof over their heads, and three square a day? And you are going to do that without government?
Give us a rational plan,.
The founders of this nation left the child rendering to their parents and their small communities. Funny how you liberals think your the end all authority on this yet its under your 40 year watch that you fucked it up and we have very low functioning kids today.. Government needs to get out of a whole host of areas it has no buisness in.
It's even got its own name-The Flynn Effect.
Are humans getting cleverer? - BBC News
And in science, there's no question we are getting sharper as a population, as well as teaching our students well. My kids bring home stuff from their HS biology and Chem classes that I was only introduced to in college level classes. In fact, ourhighschool offers AP classes in things like organic chemistry, which was a second year college class.
Not only that, but the complexity and volume of material has increased exponentially since I attended college 25 years ago.
Pseudo-science is ghey...................
124 Year of Failed Climate predictions and Environmental Predictions
Absolutely. Working toward a degree at 71 years of age. Had to retake calculus, even though I had taken and passed all three quarters around 1970. Good thing, too. In the third quarter, we were doing Fouirer series and introduced to Fourier transforms. A friend of mine, a metalurgical engineer of the same age looked over what I was doing and stated they did not get any of that until they were in post graduate studies. Plus learning how to use a graphing calculator. What a magnificent tool. And I set there, going poke, poke, poke, while the kids fingers are flying over the keys. Generational differance.Generally, people are getting sma
generally, people are getting smarter over time.OK, I go to school with those kids. They are not fucking dummies. Yes, they show up tired, and sometimes nod off in class. No reason for that, just because they are working two jobs and trying to take two thirds load. You see, in Portland, Oregon, PCC's classes are 100+ a credit, and PSU's are twice that. And then there are books. $200 to $300 a whack. And there are only so many loans and scholarships to go around. Then there is the little matter of paying off the loans, that are often mortgage sized by the time school is finished.This is truly sickening
Sad.
How many billions of people are alive today because of the cures of the 18th, 19th and 20th century?
People are living higher quality lives that are much longer.
People can discuss things on the other side of the world.
The internet has all the knowledge to make one think this is impossible...Damn.
Time to get the govt OUT of the way so that science, technology, math can be revived by newer methods of education . Methods that are more likely to reach the MAJORITY of kids in schools. And the expectations have to be set higher. All the govt does is to set the FLOOR for the expectations and learning..
I've got enough optimism that I believe I could kidnap several hundred young Burger flippers and mall saleskids --- and turn them into chemical engineers. Or physicists. Or at least citizens that have a PRAYER of defending themselves against tech/science propaganda and think for themselves WITHOUT praying to authority...
The classes I have taken are all science and math. So I am talking about the people that we need and have jobs for. But between high school and that job is the cost of college.
Now you want to keep government out of education, Flacaltenn, so what is your solution to getting these kids in school, and keeping them there? How about the problem of a roof over their heads, and three square a day? And you are going to do that without government?
Give us a rational plan,.
The founders of this nation left the child rendering to their parents and their small communities. Funny how you liberals think your the end all authority on this yet its under your 40 year watch that you fucked it up and we have very low functioning kids today.. Government needs to get out of a whole host of areas it has no buisness in.
It's even got its own name-The Flynn Effect.
Are humans getting cleverer? - BBC News
And in science, there's no question we are getting sharper as a population, as well as teaching our students well. My kids bring home stuff from their HS biology and Chem classes that I was only introduced to in college level classes. In fact, ourhighschool offers AP classes in things like organic chemistry, which was a second year college class.
Not only that, but the complexity and volume of material has increased exponentially since I attended college 25 years ago.
But the biggest single effect that I have seen in my lifetime is the instrument we are using, the net. Literally, anyone hooked in has the worlds knowledge at their fingertips. The son or daughter of a goatherd in a third world nation, if they have access, has the same opportunity to learn as the richest kid on earth, if they take the time to learn to do it.
Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling of CO2 at that time. So, 40 years after CO2 hits 560 ppm, we'll see how he did. Bob Reiss, not being a scientist, misremembered the conversation. In his book _The Coming Storm_, Reiss does mention the doubling condition and the 40 years.
So, Flac spread some misinformation. Again. Unintentionally, this time, but his mindset makes him ripe for getting fooled like that. He wants to believe crazy things about people, so he never fact checks. He's not the authoritarian leader, he's the authoritarian follower who auto-parrots whatever TheParty tells him.
me thinks you ain't gonna be around and neither will he. So useless information about CO2.Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling of CO2 at that time. So, 40 years after CO2 hits 560 ppm, we'll see how he did. Bob Reiss, not being a scientist, misremembered the conversation. In his book _The Coming Storm_, Reiss does mention the doubling condition and the 40 years.
So, Flac spread some misinformation. Again. Unintentionally, this time, but his mindset makes him ripe for getting fooled like that. He wants to believe crazy things about people, so he never fact checks. He's not the authoritarian leader, he's the authoritarian follower who auto-parrots whatever TheParty tells him.
Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling of CO2 at that time. So, 40 years after CO2 hits 560 ppm, we'll see how he did. Bob Reiss, not being a scientist, misremembered the conversation. In his book _The Coming Storm_, Reiss does mention the doubling condition and the 40 years.
So, Flac spread some misinformation. Again. Unintentionally, this time, but his mindset makes him ripe for getting fooled like that. He wants to believe crazy things about people, so he never fact checks. He's not the authoritarian leader, he's the authoritarian follower who auto-parrots whatever TheParty tells him.
You got a link to what he told REISS??? It's in his book.. It's been requoted in 20 press sources. And Reiss asked AGAIN 10 years later and Hansen wouldn't take it back.. You -- are FOS...
The WestSide Hiway was gonna be UNDERWATER in 2018... What part of that do you "misremember"??
What Hansen tells the PUBLIC and what he can get away with publishing are 2 completely different things.
And for you to be clawing for anyway to defend the indefensible tells me -- you don't know the difference..
So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.Well then there are folks like me who need to see evidence. Funny stuff too, people see that as me thinking I know more than someone. Nope, it's me seeing what I see and saying, hmmm, name somewhere where weather is different today than 30 years ago. And.....no one can. so what is it I'm supposed to be afraid of and why do we need to spend money on something that doesn't exist.Yup, I often fail to understand other people's perceptions. Perhaps I am too insulated by having friends family and workmates all on the right side of the Bell curve.
Again, feel free to peruse all the evidence you'd like.
www.ipcc.ch
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
BTW, what does the word confidence mean to you? Evidence?
Yep. It's amazing to see what the Internet offers.Absolutely. Working toward a degree at 71 years of age. Had to retake calculus, even though I had taken and passed all three quarters around 1970. Good thing, too. In the third quarter, we were doing Fouirer series and introduced to Fourier transforms. A friend of mine, a metalurgical engineer of the same age looked over what I was doing and stated they did not get any of that until they were in post graduate studies. Plus learning how to use a graphing calculator. What a magnificent tool. And I set there, going poke, poke, poke, while the kids fingers are flying over the keys. Generational differance.Generally, people are getting sma
generally, people are getting smarter over time.OK, I go to school with those kids. They are not fucking dummies. Yes, they show up tired, and sometimes nod off in class. No reason for that, just because they are working two jobs and trying to take two thirds load. You see, in Portland, Oregon, PCC's classes are 100+ a credit, and PSU's are twice that. And then there are books. $200 to $300 a whack. And there are only so many loans and scholarships to go around. Then there is the little matter of paying off the loans, that are often mortgage sized by the time school is finished.This is truly sickening
Sad.
How many billions of people are alive today because of the cures of the 18th, 19th and 20th century?
People are living higher quality lives that are much longer.
People can discuss things on the other side of the world.
The internet has all the knowledge to make one think this is impossible...Damn.
Time to get the govt OUT of the way so that science, technology, math can be revived by newer methods of education . Methods that are more likely to reach the MAJORITY of kids in schools. And the expectations have to be set higher. All the govt does is to set the FLOOR for the expectations and learning..
I've got enough optimism that I believe I could kidnap several hundred young Burger flippers and mall saleskids --- and turn them into chemical engineers. Or physicists. Or at least citizens that have a PRAYER of defending themselves against tech/science propaganda and think for themselves WITHOUT praying to authority...
The classes I have taken are all science and math. So I am talking about the people that we need and have jobs for. But between high school and that job is the cost of college.
Now you want to keep government out of education, Flacaltenn, so what is your solution to getting these kids in school, and keeping them there? How about the problem of a roof over their heads, and three square a day? And you are going to do that without government?
Give us a rational plan,.
The founders of this nation left the child rendering to their parents and their small communities. Funny how you liberals think your the end all authority on this yet its under your 40 year watch that you fucked it up and we have very low functioning kids today.. Government needs to get out of a whole host of areas it has no buisness in.
It's even got its own name-The Flynn Effect.
Are humans getting cleverer? - BBC News
And in science, there's no question we are getting sharper as a population, as well as teaching our students well. My kids bring home stuff from their HS biology and Chem classes that I was only introduced to in college level classes. In fact, ourhighschool offers AP classes in things like organic chemistry, which was a second year college class.
Not only that, but the complexity and volume of material has increased exponentially since I attended college 25 years ago.
But the biggest single effect that I have seen in my lifetime is the instrument we are using, the net. Literally, anyone hooked in has the worlds knowledge at their fingertips. The son or daughter of a goatherd in a third world nation, if they have access, has the same opportunity to learn as the richest kid on earth, if they take the time to learn to do it.
You got a link to what he told REISS??? It's in his book..
It's been requoted in 20 press sources.
And Reiss asked AGAIN 10 years later and Hansen wouldn't take it back..
You -- are FOS...
well I'm afraid they do and they blame the oceans for eating the heat causing it. Perhaps you should actually read it.So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.Well then there are folks like me who need to see evidence. Funny stuff too, people see that as me thinking I know more than someone. Nope, it's me seeing what I see and saying, hmmm, name somewhere where weather is different today than 30 years ago. And.....no one can. so what is it I'm supposed to be afraid of and why do we need to spend money on something that doesn't exist.
Again, feel free to peruse all the evidence you'd like.
www.ipcc.ch
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
BTW, what does the word confidence mean to you? Evidence?
You obviously didn't read it. Most of WG1 is a review of the evidence, as is WG2.
They don't discuss a 'hiatus' in the document anywhere...probably because it only exists in the minds of deniers.
You're living in the hottest year ever recorded. Only a denier would call that a 'hiatus'!
"D"
nobody cares about the science
So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.Well then there are folks like me who need to see evidence. Funny stuff too, people see that as me thinking I know more than someone. Nope, it's me seeing what I see and saying, hmmm, name somewhere where weather is different today than 30 years ago. And.....no one can. so what is it I'm supposed to be afraid of and why do we need to spend money on something that doesn't exist.
Again, feel free to peruse all the evidence you'd like.
www.ipcc.ch
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
BTW, what does the word confidence mean to you? Evidence?
You obviously didn't read it. Most of WG1 is a review of the evidence, as is WG2.
They don't discuss a 'hiatus' in the document anywhere...probably because it only exists in the minds of deniers.
You're living in the hottest year ever recorded. Only a denier would call that a 'hiatus'!
The wizards of Oz took out statements about the pause in the Exec Summary as they appeared in most every released draft. Maybe you just never got further than that...
You got a link to what he told REISS??? It's in his book..
Ye, it's in his book that Hansen predicted such things 40 years from a doubling. That's the point. When you claimed Mann was predicting 20 years from the current date, you were repeating something the author misremembered in an interview 12 years later.
Now, as I don't have a copy of the book to show the page, I'll have to show other sources. Oh wait, that won't work. They're all rational sources, and your cult has sworn jihad on such rational sources, auto-declaring everything they say is faked. It's quite the impenetrable anti-reality bubble you've set up there.
It's been requoted in 20 press sources.
You mean the mistake in the interview was first requoted on WUWT, and all the denier blogs repeated it from there. Being they're deniers, the concept of fact-checking never occurred to even one of them. After all, if they fact-checked, they wouldn't be deniers.
And Reiss asked AGAIN 10 years later and Hansen wouldn't take it back..
Yes, because for 40 years from a doubling, it was a good prediction. You need to stop pretending the prediction was for 20 years from the present.
You -- are FOS...
You should thank me for correcting your error. Instead, you're choosing to keep repeating the error, which transforms it into deliberate dishonesty. The cult says the cultists must demonize Hansen, so that's what you're going to do, period, and you literally don't care what the actual facts are.
That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is ignored by the world, the pathological dishonesty of it. The #1 reason, of course, is that all the denier science stinks so badly.
There's a reason 'hiatus' was in quotes, and you must have missed the statement that the 200s were the warmest decade in history, with the 2010s looking to easily best it and we are only halfway through.So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
BTW, what does the word confidence mean to you? Evidence?
You obviously didn't read it. Most of WG1 is a review of the evidence, as is WG2.
They don't discuss a 'hiatus' in the document anywhere...probably because it only exists in the minds of deniers.
You're living in the hottest year ever recorded. Only a denier would call that a 'hiatus'!
Well --- will ya look at who ELSE never read AR5 ???
This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.
The IPCC draws the following conclusion:
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Here is the relevant text from Chapter 9 of the WG I Report, that attempts to justify their final conclusion:
Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11 ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern- Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012)). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19).
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.
How you like dem weak-ass excuses for the pause that I blew up in the above ---- eh?? The SUN has nothing to do with the warm-up since the LIAge ---- but NOW it can swamp out the signature of Global Warming when it takes a dive.. A NORMAL EXPECTED TINY dive at that.
Where was it in their modeling??
Contradicts the falsified radiative forcing for solar that the IPCC has attempted to repeatedly peddle..
And MAN -- that recent volcanic activity has been a rreal party poop hasn't it>??
well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.There's a reason 'hiatus' was in quotes, and you must have missed the statement that the 200s were the warmest decade in history, with the 2010s looking to easily best it and we are only halfway through.So I still see you don't know what a model and a prediction is. That's ok, it is expected in this forum from your side. But, much like your cohorts in here, pull one abstract or excerpt you believe is evidence from IPCC AR5. Dude, I have read it, and there are no empirical statements other to state that the oceans ate warming and the reason for the hiatus. To which, no one can seem to explain what excess heat is or where it came from since there was a hiatus.what evidence? There isn't any evidence in that link. It's all predictions. So, you got evidence, let's see it.
Actually, most of WG I and II is evidence - quite elegantly laid out in an easy to read form.
You not being able to understand it is not my problem. In fact, you didnt even bother to go over to read anythhing, because it is quite clear that the initial chapters by Baede outlines the mechanism for AGW quite clearly, bolstered by rigorous referencing, as would be expected in a scientific paper.
You, however, are probably more used to comic books, or Bill OReilly 'histories', and dont have the capacity to read that stuff.
Leave the science to people who understand it, dude.
BTW, what does the word confidence mean to you? Evidence?
You obviously didn't read it. Most of WG1 is a review of the evidence, as is WG2.
They don't discuss a 'hiatus' in the document anywhere...probably because it only exists in the minds of deniers.
You're living in the hottest year ever recorded. Only a denier would call that a 'hiatus'!
Well --- will ya look at who ELSE never read AR5 ???
This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.
The IPCC draws the following conclusion:
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Here is the relevant text from Chapter 9 of the WG I Report, that attempts to justify their final conclusion:
Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11 ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern- Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012)). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19).
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.
How you like dem weak-ass excuses for the pause that I blew up in the above ---- eh?? The SUN has nothing to do with the warm-up since the LIAge ---- but NOW it can swamp out the signature of Global Warming when it takes a dive.. A NORMAL EXPECTED TINY dive at that.
Where was it in their modeling??
Contradicts the falsified radiative forcing for solar that the IPCC has attempted to repeatedly peddle..
And MAN -- that recent volcanic activity has been a rreal party poop hasn't it>??
Just as they predicted!
There's a reason 'hiatus' was in quotes, and you must have missed the statement that the 200s were the warmest decade in history, with the 2010s looking to easily best it and we are only halfway through.Well --- will ya look at who ELSE never read AR5 ???
This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.
The IPCC draws the following conclusion:
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Here is the relevant text from Chapter 9 of the WG I Report, that attempts to justify their final conclusion:
Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11 ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern- Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012)). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19).
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.
How you like dem weak-ass excuses for the pause that I blew up in the above ---- eh?? The SUN has nothing to do with the warm-up since the LIAge ---- but NOW it can swamp out the signature of Global Warming when it takes a dive.. A NORMAL EXPECTED TINY dive at that.
Where was it in their modeling??
Contradicts the falsified radiative forcing for solar that the IPCC has attempted to repeatedly peddle..
And MAN -- that recent volcanic activity has been a rreal party poop hasn't it>??
Just as they predicted!
