I think what boggles the mind, to me at least, is that you are attempting to associate this with the warming due to CO2 basically questioning if CO2 can cause warming or much warming. A quick view of the articles shows me that they aren't really talking about CO2 at all. OR at least that is not their main point. What they are talking about in the first article is solar variability and the ENSOs effects on near-future climate change. Let's look at the actual study they are talking about shall we? Instead of getting a third party interpretation of it. (Or in this case possibly even a forth party interpretation)

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%2...

They state that the predicted warming over the decades following 2009 is expected to increase at an average rate of 0.17C +/- 0.03C. But they state that the warming trend in their model is opposite that of another mainly because they did not include the effects of the AMOC in their model which was projected to provide cooling over this time period. They then talk about temperature changes on a regional scale.Here is a link to the paper that they talk about as having a different view from their own that included the declining AMOC.

http://oceanrep.geomar.de/4932/1/nature0...

The MET releases the other article talks about merely state what has been continuously stated in here. That ocean heat uptake has increased (Due to changes in the AMOC/PDO) and that could delay earlier predictions of global warming by 5-10 years. However that energy that has entered the ocean does not just magically disappear. When the cycle goes full circle it will show itself again. The energy is known to have entered the system.

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publica...

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/...

http://www.bnl.gov/envsci/pubs/pdf/2012/...

Kano: the solar cycle works on an 11 year cycle. The oscillatory cycles do not change the energy balance of the planet they just redistribute the heat. Nothing that you posted there takes away from the fact that the energy balance of the planet shows more energy is being retained in the atmosphere.

In an unpaid but frenzied fit of news consumption, editing, correction, aggregation, and citation, Mampel has established himself as by far the most active contributor to the Wikipedia page on Hurricane Sandy, with more than twice the number of edits as the next-most-active contributor at the time this article was written. And Mampel made sure that the Hurricane Sandy article, for four days after the hurricane made landfall in New Jersey, had no mention of “global warming” or “climate change” whatsoever.

Is it that scientists don't have a grip on climate or didn't have a firm grip on climate? A few years ago, how many people answered YA questions on Smart phones?

In case you haven't noticed, scientific and technical knowledge advances over time.

One of the hardest things to do is admit being wrong. I can't imagine how hard it would be if you're considered the experts, a majority of the media is pitching your story, nations relying on your predictions to bolster claims for industrial retribution, environmentalist counting on you to slow down the expansion of civilization, the concern we should all have about how detrimental it would be to environmental science and science in general, the list is long but the longer they continue putting it off the better chances they won't be around when it's time to pay the piper.

At some point in time you'd expect followers to wake up and stop seeing failed predictions as a scientific breakthrough for environmental science.

That is bogus. There is no substantial scientific evidence of this. In fact, may I remind you, many of the same scientists who are hawking AGW were preaching an Imminent Ice Age.

Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

To come to the assumption you claim, you have to deny facts and history.

For over a decade the earth has been cooling, yet, CO2 level has increased. Absolutely no correlation between earth's temperature and the level of CO2.

The truth never has to change but the AGW theory has gone one end of the spectrum, cooling, to the earth burning up in a cinder. If one is not skeptical of this then that one is weak on science. There are many of who see the truth.

It boggles my mind too, I mean 16yrs no rise, how long are we expected to wait for this catastrophic warming, what if it gets cooler as it probably will, being that climate goes in cycles, we have had the hot cycle, so a cold cycle ( with the PDO AMO and solar cycle on the decline) is to be expected.

When will they get it into their heads that CO2 above pre-industrial levels has so little effect, that it gets lost in the noise of other climate causes.

I first heard about the potential for warming due to CO2 in 1965. The only thing that has changed is that much more CO2 has been added than expected then, and the effects are showing up much earlier than then expected.

Why don't you turn to holocaust denying by quote-mining Hitler?

When you are trying to push a political cause, you typically look for short term results. That is why alarmists have exaggerated to the ridiculous extremes and when their dire predictions didn't come true, they simply doubled down and ignored that they made the past predictions. Some made retroactive predictions. Some suggested we would be a big cooling trend if it weren't for our CO2 emissions. They got caught up in group think gone amok. Admitting they might have made a mistake would be an admission that perhaps their faith was misguided. I think it would be like a very religious Christian or Muslim to question their faith. It would be questioning their whole reason for being.

Chem Flunky, your side isn't like Darwin. They are more like those who embraced the Piltdown Man IMO. Those scientists believed in the Piltdown man because it gave them what they wanted, a large brained ape man. AGW gives alarmists what they want, an their excuse to go after the energy industry, to tax and to regulate and to provide a revenue stream to their political campaign coffers like nothing they ever had seen before. I know they don't all want that, particularly the ones who post here, but the money and power drives their cause.

This characteristic, of changing the argument every time reality contradicts the theory, is one of the features that distinguish pseudoscience from real science.

And, that planet Nibiru is *still* hiding behind the sun...

It's the IPCC and all of its scientists (American or otherwise) looking for causation. That's what the IPCC does.

That's what they are paid to do.

They can play games with the math and the endless variables involved with the climate in order to show that they are figuring it out, but there is one fact that they continue to reveal : They are far from understanding it. Predictions are still calculated guesses.

Flashback to 2009:

Comments about the skeptics: "The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline." "New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Ni?o southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics..."

Scientists: "But new research firmly rejects that argument....The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle....As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the (IPCC)"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Fours lately almost exactly to the day:

Comments about the skeptics: "Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict."

Scientists: "But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level....The Met Office has predicted it could be another five years before surface temperatures begin to rise again,"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10195498/Global-warming-on-pause-but-set-to-resume.html

The only consistency I see is the claim that CO2 has and will continue to cause warming. And that tenuous claim is maintained in the myriad of different explanations and changes to predictions and hindsight that simply boggles the mind. It seems like an endless string of "new research" to show how previous predictions have gone wrong and future predictions are still valid.

What boggles my mind even further is how somebody cannot be even a little skeptical that scientists maybe don't quite have a grasp of the climate and what the future holds in five, ten or fifty years. You really have to set aside all objectivity to just keep a strong faith in all of this.

Other than the bleeding obvious, how can that be?

When you start a lie "Man Made Global Warming" and nobody buys the lie ,you add more 'Climate Change" then you embellishing it . Tornado's and Hurricanes caused

by "Climate Change" even though the spokesperson has no proof at the atomic level .

You cry wolf and the sky is falling and wonder why nobody believes you.

Global warming is disguised as a sea creature That will pop out of the ocean in 5 years?

And bring floods and famine and climate refuges and disease and crop failure and high gas prices and war ect, etc......That sounds reeeelly BAAAADDD!!!!! Just wait 5 years!!!

Better get ready NOW!!! Only hope is to TAX, TAX, TAX!!!!

I don't think any sane person claims we have a perfect understanding of climate science.

Darwin didn't have a perfect understanding of evolution (he didn't even know about DNA), but he still got the broad strokes right.

And short-term predictions (especially ones less than 30 years in length) have always been a bit tenuous. Weather is "noisy", even climate is a bit "noisy". The shorter of a time span we're talking about, the less we can meaningfully predict, which means the more scientists are occasionally be talking out of orifices normally reserved for eliminatory functions.

Seriously, you're using the guardian and Telegraph as sources for anything???