Gary F - Your science is seriously flawed and weak. The 1% change in our energy budget is suppose to cause a warming of 2.8C according to your very own AGW theorist Trenberth. This statement itself is saying that CO2 warming is linear if in fact the current warming is due to CO2 increases. When your science can quantify the actual warming that has happened from anthropogenic sources, then you can come play in a real sand box. Until then, it would be better if you take your sifting spoon and try and get all of that doo-doo out of your own sandbox. :-)
It’s cute they way Deniers evaluate the validity of climate models without ever using any science or math or paying attention to things like geography (e.g., the northern hemisphere vs. global). It’s the same way that children play at being grown-ups – like sitting behind the wheel of a parked car pretending that they are winning the Indianapolis 500.
>>hmm how will this affect the climate change theory.<<
It has no affect on AGW theory.
>>… that is the obligatory statement needed to get it published.<<
That is the obligatory belief in an imagined global conspiracy upon which every Denier argument depends.
What do you make of the fact that the authors say 1/3 of the variance in their model is unexplained?
From the link
"A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT, which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971–2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted. NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming."
In other words, they are only projecting a temporary stop in the warming caused by humans.
What a croc. You don't like what is in your own links, dismiss them. And if you read the article, you would know that it is talking about climate models.
It doesn't. If you read the first paragraph of the paper they explain it ... the oscillation has a short term periodicity which is superimposed on a longer term warming trend:
Observations show that in contrast with the monotonic increase in global annual mean concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) (Figure 1a,
black line), the oscillatory multidecadal variability in the twentieth century Northern
Hemisphere (NH) mean surface temperature (NHT) (Figure 1a, red line) is obvious
[Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994; Swanson et al., 2009], superimposed upon a long-term warming trend.
I think that's pretty clear. The temperatures in the northern hemisphere oscillate around an increasing mean temperature.
not sure what you mean by "climate change theory" It certainly will not change the physics of greenhouse gases. At best we have an modulation(Oscillation) of a long term that is still going up.
In any case, why cherry pick the northern hemisphere, does not the whole earth count?
And 15 years from now the same alarmists on these boards will be saying that it takes 50 years to establish a climate trend.
Temps go up. Temps go down. Doesn't matter to climate alarmists. They call it 'climate change' regardless just to blame mankind so they can confiscate wealth from the producers, create massive oppressive governments for the consumers, and destroy our freedoms in the process.
Climate change never stops. It has not currently stopped. What has stopped is Global Warming.
The climate is changing, it's getting colder. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT AGW ADVOCATES HAVE PREDICTED FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.
That's why they started calling it climate change instead of 'global warming' and the SCAM goes on.
No one disbelieves climate change including me. The climate has always changed and always will. But man-made Global Warming is not and never was happening.
-----------------------
15yrs according to this paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057877/pdf
It says Northern hemisphere temps (2012-2027) are expected to fall slightly, due to the weakening of the north atlantic oscillation.
hmm how will this affect the climate change theory.
