Global Warming ended in early 2012. Weather today is like it was in the 1970's before Global Warming. Mike
About .5C warmer than it actually is. That is a lot of extra warming to disappear over 15 years. That comes out to about 3.3C per century. So we can take the IPCC estimate of 2C-4.5C of warming and say the good range is about -1.3C to 1.2C of warming, best estimate -.3C. Now there are some error bars, and of course there is natural variation on a year to year basis, but I think the evidence for the warmest models being accurate is weak.
According to Jim Hansen on Book TV Venus temps.
Please don't ban 'C'. When one points a finger without proof, like calling you a mental midget, there are really three fingers pointing right back at him. So it only proves that he is truly the 'mental midget'. And his answers definitely show it.
Be proud that you exposed him for what he truly is. Let the World see how utterly insane this contributor from the other side of logic really is.
Your logical question just shows that these so called saviors of the Earth are being stung by your absolute intelligence. The have no legitimate answer so they revert to name calling, corrupted data, terroristic tactics and outright lies. It is laughable as they flounder in their cesspool of lies and deceit.
C is such a good example of this. It would be a pity to lose him.
In direct answer to your question: Depends. I think according to Mann we are supposed to be about 6 degrees above normal by now. No wonder they want to hide the hockey stick.
We don't know, but the planet has gotten warmer and you deniers and skeptics haven't given an explanation for that in more than 20 years. You haven't taken a physical mechanism, plugged the values into that, and shown us why the planet has gotten warmer. You haven't been able to show that it's 'natural variation', you haven't identified the cause of that variation, you haven't shown that it is the sun, or cosmic rays, or whatever 'explanation' is the flavour of the month.
The models all showed the planet warming. It's pretty much done that. If there's a 'pause', fine, models might need tweaking. But that perhaps slightly flawed mathematical modelling of a complex system stands in contrast to the big empty sheet the deniers and skeptics keep staring at and never quite get round to writing anything down.
about 6 C higher than 1900
Don't worry though. According to alarmists the AGW theory is completely falsifiable but they just won't tell you how it can be falsified. Skeptics just have to keep on guessing how the theory could be proven false and then they'll tell us when were right.
I've been told climatology is a real science too.
real scary graph there, notice how temps are flat, I'm real scared now and I am now a firm believer of runaway global warming
Spencer again What a joke! A person would have to be a mental midget to take that dodo seriously
Actually most of the warmists here know full well that models are not known to be accurate The only ones infatuated with models are you know nothing skeptics
Didn't call you anything unless you are "a person" Thought you were Maxx and you never said you take him seriously
-----------------------
Here are 73 Warmist/Alarmist Climate models.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It looks to me that the average is supposed to be about 1°C above normal for 2014.
In reality we are about one-fifth of that.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/plot/rss/from:1998/to/trend
And Warmists are stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html
-----------------------
more cool than warm in my area because I live in the northern hemisphere
your cherry picking at 1998 for the second link is quite obvious to anyone who knows the long term trend.
as for a ship stuck in Antarctica how is this a global event except at FOX and WUWT?
As for DR Spencer, it's pretty obvious models are outperforming his data sets. Any real skeptic would ask why he is out to lunch.
There you go again, throwing facts and their own predictions at them. That just isn't fair.
The models are based on the best peer reviewed science, they can't be wrong because if they are wrong the science is wrong, and AGW fails
