The entertaining thing is that a simple linear trend accounting for PDO does better than most all, if not all of their models. Further, as their models overestimate, their mdoels are exponential (much greater than linear). This inherently means that they are claiming that the largest changes in temps are going to occur much later. This is problematic, because this really places whether there is any acceleration in warming or if it is just linear or even less than linear as would be expected if the positive feedbacks are not as large as presumed.

This might just be the start of the errors in their models.

Why do you read old crappy news about a "leaked" copy of AR5 when AR5 is available for your direct reading? People with the critical thinking skill to understand science know to go directly to the source to get real information.

According to the IPCC, which you are citing here as important and credible

"Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Ni?o, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)"

You prefer to read a crappy newspaper that gives you small pieces of information rather than gather all the information that is available, and you choose to make conclusions on things which you know nothing about. You choose to know too little about science to even understand what you choose to not know. There is no hope for you. Your children will be as dumb and poor as you are.

Those who are actually interested in what the IPCC actually says can read the report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

David Rose has lied previously about MET data Rose is the one who started the lie about 15 years no global warming It was pure lies and all you can expect from him is more lies, Curry has never had any climate education, she is but a self proclaimed climate scientist who has never even published a peer paper in her own field.

I don't see a link from Rose's article to an actual study

You are right there has been no statistically significant surface warming but to say there has been no warming which is what denier after denier keeps saying is a lie and no significant warming is still warming to the average 0.2 C per year according to Phil Jones. The oceans have been absorbing the lions share of heat and it is the combo of surface and ocean warming which makes up AGW

But 2000-2010 was the warmest decade in 134 years, 2013 was tied for the 4th warmest year in 134 years and Jan-Mar 2014 was the 7th such warmest period in 134 years

These aren't exaggerated claims, they are real time temperatures

Someone once said that is much more difficult to unlearn something wrong that you have learned than to learn the right thing the first time.

You have learned so many wrong things that you may be a lost cause. But if you don't think that you are, I suggest that you start reading physics and atmospheric science textbooks and stop reading internet blogs.

I would suggest that you learn some statistics, too, but there is a guy in here with a Ph.D. in statistics that has a poor understanding of statistics also, so that may not help.

>>Update : C - Empirical temp records do not lie. No significant global warming for the past 17.8 years.<<

LIAR. Either show us the test results that support your claim of “no significant warming” (using the same p=0.05 level you held Phil Jones to) or STFU.

>>Baccheus - empirical evidence has proven that 95% of all computer climate models are wildly exaggerated and wrong.<<

Again – either put up or shut – idiot.

watch Cosmos this Sunday

it's will blow the door off you deniers

James, what would "empirical scientific evidence" be? What would convince you?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.ph...

GISTEMP from 1996 to 2014 shows .106 +- .111 C warming per decade

Because the majority do not realize that CAGW is a house of cards built upon bad climate models that only a fraction of the climate science community is capable of understanding. I believe that people are so entrenched in the movement that they refuse to accept the reality that the climate did not cooperate with the model projections. I suspect when the realization that the warming in the later part of the twentieth century was primarily due to natural variation and the climate will slowly cool for the rest of this century, many of these people will need some form of counseling and will be forced to change careers.

I am skeptical that they can claim with much certainty that it is even as quarter of what they projected but at least that seems closer to what I figured was likely. Without catastrophic warming, they know they won't get diddly and so they hide it. Their cause will die if this sort of thing has any legs and they know it.

Their claims are so wildly exaggerated they can't even keep up with the failures of those claims it seems.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Why do science deniers continue to link to long debunked Daily Mail stories?

Not only that, the author of that piece of junk, David Rose, admits in a clarification at the end of the article that some of the claims he made are wrong. That's what one gets when one reports from leaked draft reports and does not have the patience to wait for the release of the final report.

Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading:

"The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect."

Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University:

"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."

Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at Reading University:

"The trend over the past 50 years [the Mail on Sunday] says is in [the new IPCC report] is almost identical to the [last report in 2007] so the article's headline and premise that global warming is half of what was said ... is incorrect."

Edit:

<< No significant global warming for the past 17.8 years. >>

B0ll0cks! Even the dataset with the lowest increase shows a significant warming over the past 17 years.