Climate what? Americans score a "D" in science!!!

[skookerasbil]

"D"


nobody cares about the science

With every post, you make it clear that American scientific illiteracy is a problem.

LOL.....nobody gives a rats ass about science in 2015. It was about 90 seconds in the debate last night and when the moderator brought up climate change, one candidate launched into what a hustle the climate change industry is and the moderator couldn't change the subject fast enough. The whacked out nutty-ass AGW bozo's in here are OCD on climate change but nobody else out there is caring. Indeed......this shit is an internet hobby!!!


Hey Frank..........what happened to my spike the football emoticon???

 

[threegoofs]

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.

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.

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

 

[threegoofs]

"D"


nobody cares about the science

With every post, you make it clear that American scientific illiteracy is a problem.

LOL.....nobody gives a rats ass about science in 2015. It was about 90 seconds in the debate last night and when the moderator brought up climate change, one candidate launched into what a hustle the climate change industry is and the moderator couldn't change the subject fast enough. The whacked out nutty-ass AGW bozo's in here are OCD on climate change but nobody else out there is caring. Indeed......this shit is an internet hobby!!!


Hey Frank..........what happened to my spike the football emoticon???

Oh. I thought scientists were all getting rich because the government is showering them with money.

Guess that must have been your posts last week.

 

[jc456]

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.

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted 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.

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

I didn't post anything

 

[threegoofs]

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

I didn't post anything

LOL.

You didn't even bother to read what you copy/pasted. Wow.

 

[skookerasbil]

"D"


nobody cares about the science

With every post, you make it clear that American scientific illiteracy is a problem.

LOL.....nobody gives a rats ass about science in 2015. It was about 90 seconds in the debate last night and when the moderator brought up climate change, one candidate launched into what a hustle the climate change industry is and the moderator couldn't change the subject fast enough. The whacked out nutty-ass AGW bozo's in here are OCD on climate change but nobody else out there is caring. Indeed......this shit is an internet hobby!!!


Hey Frank..........what happened to my spike the football emoticon???

Oh. I thought scientists were all getting rich because the government is showering them with money.

Guess that must have been your posts last week.

Yep.....that's how it works s0n!!!

 

[jc456]

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

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>??

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...

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.

Just as they predicted!

well then let's see that abstract/ excerpt. Post it up here and let's see what you're talking about.

LOL. You posted it.

I didn't post anything

LOL.

You didn't even bother to read what you copy/pasted. Wow.

So again, what post number?

 

[mamooth]

All that to say you can't back up your excuses ---- Spare me jerk..

You should know by now that I sometimes bait people into doubling down on their errors, to make it all the more satisfying when I expose them. I had no doubts you'd take the bait.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---

At this point, you either explain why you snarled at me for being correct again, or you start sputtering that Hansen isn't a valid source on Hansen, thus revealing yourself to be an ideologically blinded crank. Either way, I win.

 

[skookerasbil]

All that to say you can't back up your excuses ---- Spare me jerk..

You should know by now that I sometimes bait people into doubling down on their errors, to make it all the more satisfying when I expose them. I had no doubts you'd take the bait.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---

At this point, you either explain why you snarled at me for being correct again, or you start sputtering that Hansen isn't a valid source on Hansen, thus revealing yourself to be an ideologically blinded crank. Either way, I win.

Who cant love when deeply religious people call others "ideologically blinded cranks"!!!!

 

[Unkotare]

t generally speaking, the country could care less about climate change .....

People could care less about nonsense that doesn't exist? Oh no!

 

[Unkotare]

Rest assured, every single human being on Earth is going to get intimately aquainted [sic] with Global Warming in the next five years......

Like we have been for the past ten years without a major hurricane in the US? Maybe you need to worry about your own qualifications.

 

[skookerasbil]

"D"

because nobody cares..................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]


The AGW k00ks can post up nonsense about the science until the cows come home........the graph displayed above removes all doubt ( Gallup and Rasmussen polls show the exact same numbers btw)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[threegoofs]

"D"

because nobody cares..................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]


The AGW k00ks can post up nonsense about the science until the cows come home........the graph displayed above removes all doubt ( Gallup and Rasmussen polls show the exact same numbers btw)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][/URL]

You literally demonstrate the problem with every post.

The scientific illiteracy is the fact that the science tells us we better care soon, yet the average clown doesn't get it.

And the below average clowns post and brag about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

All that to say you can't back up your excuses ---- Spare me jerk..

You should know by now that I sometimes bait people into doubling down on their errors, to make it all the more satisfying when I expose them. I had no doubts you'd take the bait.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---

At this point, you either explain why you snarled at me for being correct again, or you start sputtering that Hansen isn't a valid source on Hansen, thus revealing yourself to be an ideologically blinded crank. Either way, I win.

Not really -- Glad you exposed that rambling screed called "Singing in the Rain".. It reads very much like the UniBomber manifesto.. What with references to movies and children's songs and saving the world -- this guy was certifiable when he wrote that garbage. NOT the picture of a govt TOP SCIENTIST. And might explain why he's not the head of NASA GISS anymore. I encourage EVERYONE to read it and see how deluded and power drunk this dude Hansen really is.

And the facts are ----

His predictions of window tape, different birds and a flooded West Side Hiway still stand for 2028.
AND -- the herring about a "doubling" was not ever acknowledged in the book quote that the author still stands by.

In fact -- by 2028 -- we will likely be flirting with the FIRST doubling of CO2 since the Indust. Age. And maybe JUST BARELY. And that's with actual emissions running at the high side of most scenarios. Was NEVER an emission scenario that EVER showed a SECOND doubling by 2028... Not one published at any rate..

The guy has got serious issues.. And is closer to the UniBomber or Jim Jones than a world reknown scientist..

 

[skookerasbil]

"D"

because nobody cares..................


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]


The AGW k00ks can post up nonsense about the science until the cows come home........the graph displayed above removes all doubt ( Gallup and Rasmussen polls show the exact same numbers btw)

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']
You literally demonstrate the problem with every post.

The scientific illiteracy is the fact that the science tells us we better care soon, yet the average clown doesn't get it.

And the below average clowns post and brag about it.[/url]

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']



Only care that the clowns are winning!!!

Been in this forum for 6 years.........have never spent one nano-second trying to persuade the AGW goofballs to a different viewpoint. Im in here to do one thing: educate the curious who wander in here that AGW is an industry that uses deceit at every turn and IS STILL LOSING!!![/URL]

 

[threegoofs]

"D"

because nobody cares..................


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]


The AGW k00ks can post up nonsense about the science until the cows come home........the graph displayed above removes all doubt ( Gallup and Rasmussen polls show the exact same numbers btw)

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']
You literally demonstrate the problem with every post.

The scientific illiteracy is the fact that the science tells us we better care soon, yet the average clown doesn't get it.

And the below average clowns post and brag about it.[/url]

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']



Only care that the clowns are winning!!!

Been in this forum for 6 years.........have never spent one nano-second trying to persuade the AGW goofballs to a different viewpoint. Im in here to do one thing: educate the curious who wander in here that AGW is an industry that uses deceit at every turn and IS STILL LOSING!!![/URL]

Well, as long as it keeps you off the streets.

 

[mamooth]

Not really -- Glad you exposed that rambling screed called "Singing in the Rain".. It reads very much like the UniBomber manifesto..

Most of your posts read like Unibomber manifestos now, including that one. It's something we see with most of the deniers. The declining fortunes of the denier cult have had a notable effect on denier sanity.

His predictions of window tape, different birds and a flooded West Side Hiway still stand for 2028. AND -- the herring about a "doubling" was not ever acknowledged in the book quote that the author still stands by.

And again, he never made such a predictions, as Weiss confirmed. You're just refusing to admit you made a mistake. An emotional response, which explains why deniers refuse to abandon their cult. The evidence that deniers have completely failed at everything is so overwhelming that even deniers understand it on some level. However, after devoting so many years to being so emotionally invested in being so totally wrong, deniers find it impossible to abandon ship now, so they'll be accompanying the sinking SS Denier to the bottom.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not really -- Glad you exposed that rambling screed called "Singing in the Rain".. It reads very much like the UniBomber manifesto..

Most of your posts read like Unibomber manifestos now, including that one. It's something we see with most of the deniers. The declining fortunes of the denier cult have had a notable effect on denier sanity.

His predictions of window tape, different birds and a flooded West Side Hiway still stand for 2028. AND -- the herring about a "doubling" was not ever acknowledged in the book quote that the author still stands by.

And again, he never made such a predictions, as Weiss confirmed. You're just refusing to admit you made a mistake. An emotional response, which explains why deniers refuse to abandon their cult. The evidence that deniers have completely failed at everything is so overwhelming that even deniers understand it on some level. However, after devoting so many years to being so emotionally invested in being so totally wrong, deniers find it impossible to abandon ship now, so they'll be accompanying the sinking SS Denier to the bottom.

Hmmm.....if deniers have "failed at everything", why does the poll displayed 5 posts above indicate that the public doesn't give a rats ass about global warming?

The fact is, the global warming alarmists have been throwing bombs for 20 years and STILL the public lists about 20 things they are far more concerned about ( 23rd out of 24 ). Which means.........who exactly is the cult s0n??


Evidently, FlaCalTenn Unibomber efforts have been exceedingly effective!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[flacaltenn]

Not really -- Glad you exposed that rambling screed called "Singing in the Rain".. It reads very much like the UniBomber manifesto..

Most of your posts read like Unibomber manifestos now, including that one. It's something we see with most of the deniers. The declining fortunes of the denier cult have had a notable effect on denier sanity.

His predictions of window tape, different birds and a flooded West Side Hiway still stand for 2028. AND -- the herring about a "doubling" was not ever acknowledged in the book quote that the author still stands by.

And again, he never made such a predictions, as Weiss confirmed. You're just refusing to admit you made a mistake. An emotional response, which explains why deniers refuse to abandon their cult. The evidence that deniers have completely failed at everything is so overwhelming that even deniers understand it on some level. However, after devoting so many years to being so emotionally invested in being so totally wrong, deniers find it impossible to abandon ship now, so they'll be accompanying the sinking SS Denier to the bottom.

I made no mistake -- Weiss made the mistake.. And that is par for a guy who writes end of the world books on Global Warming. Knows NOTHING about the topic.

But YOU are in serious denial or one of the finest saints of GW ever to grace the planet. The way you ATTEMPT to justify Hansen's grenade tossing to the media. And I'm actually SHOCKED that you would need to prove this point that badly -- that you weren't weren't embarrassed to your core to post that "whatever it was" that came out of Hansen's manifesto..

 

[skookerasbil]

Not really -- Glad you exposed that rambling screed called "Singing in the Rain".. It reads very much like the UniBomber manifesto..

Most of your posts read like Unibomber manifestos now, including that one. It's something we see with most of the deniers. The declining fortunes of the denier cult have had a notable effect on denier sanity.

His predictions of window tape, different birds and a flooded West Side Hiway still stand for 2028. AND -- the herring about a "doubling" was not ever acknowledged in the book quote that the author still stands by.

And again, he never made such a predictions, as Weiss confirmed. You're just refusing to admit you made a mistake. An emotional response, which explains why deniers refuse to abandon their cult. The evidence that deniers have completely failed at everything is so overwhelming that even deniers understand it on some level. However, after devoting so many years to being so emotionally invested in being so totally wrong, deniers find it impossible to abandon ship now, so they'll be accompanying the sinking SS Denier to the bottom.

I made no mistake -- Weiss made the mistake.. And that is par for a guy who writes end of the world books on Global Warming. Knows NOTHING about the topic.

But YOU are in serious denial or one of the finest saints of GW ever to grace the planet. The way you ATTEMPT to justify Hansen's grenade tossing to the media. And I'm actually SHOCKED that you would need to prove this point that badly -- that you weren't weren't embarrassed to your core to post that "whatever it was" that came out of Hansen's manifesto..

Hey man........if he was a genuine ice statue, this Mamooth bozo would still be touting the religion.

Remember Jack Nicholson in the last scene of "The Shining"???