The newest, Nov 2013, IPCC report confirms there has been no global warming actually for 17 years.
If you are a 17 yr old teenager, there has been no global warming in your life time.
Every kid in school right now has not experienced warming in their lifetime.
For the last 5 years every senior to graduate from High school has had no global warming the whole time they attended school and were forced to watch Al Gores movie
If you graduated High School after 1997 there has been no global temperature rise since the day you graduated.
If you were shown the now infamous 1998 hockey-stick graph, it was an intentional lie to gain fame.
If you were shown pictures of polar bear Mommies and babies dying because of Climate Change, it was all a lie to gain donations (money).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
http://polarbearscience.com/2012/09/
http://www.examiner.com/article/canada-s...
Well, if a 15yr trend tells us anything (I don't think it does because natural variability is sufficient to mask any underlying trend) but if it does, then the period 1984 to 1999 had a trend of around 1.5x the 0.02/yr given by the IPCC. I'm sure I could find more examples if I spent the time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
We would do better by looking at the 30yr trend; at least this allows the natural variability to average out and will be statistically significant.
If that becomes flat then I will become a lot more skeptical.
Any period of more warming would be reason to say things are worse than expected, and a basis for making the models show even more warming. The goal is to scare people.
Overestimating 111 out of 114 simulations rounds up to that magic 97% number again. WHOAH SPOOKY!!!!
So 3% of their simulations (stimulations?) were correct & their trying to run with that?
I guess that proves the old adage that ipcc panel members may occasionally accidentally stumble over the truth but they quickly pick themselves up & hurry on down their chosen road as if nothing had happened.
It also proves that when the ipcc thinks it may glimpse a light at the end of the tunnel their first instinct is to BUY MORE TUNNEL.
Or more accurately, seek funding to build more tunnel.
"There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable internal climate variability."
Medium confidence only???? The only thing I have high confidence in is the thing they can only grant a measly medium. That darned natural climate variability must be minimized or it threatens their whole agenda. They can't ignore it completely so they give a "medium" and move on. Clearly they are only referring to natural cooling trends but threw the other in to appear reasonable. What they should say is that obviously 111 of the 114 model simulations were in error or exaggerated warming.
"Warming occurred much faster than predicted by climate models over this period likely due to a dramatic increase in solar activity."
Your statement is improperly worded and very leading, Ottawa Mike. "Leading" as towards your ideologically driven train of thought. The science does not support the wording of your statement as it pertains to what is occurring with the climate since the industrial revolution. The proper wording of your statement should be, "Increased solar activity warming of Earth occurred much faster than predicted by climate models over this period, likely due to a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels." Unless, of course, your sole intent is to confuse others about what is actually happening. The climate models are not capable of being programmed with information of the precise duration and intensity of any of the natural variations within the climate simply because no one can know, with a strong degree of certainty, as to how intense or enduring any of the natural variations within the climate will be. Nor would anyone know as to if any of these natural variations within the climate would be in conjunction with any of the other natural variations with the climate. Let us not forget that the natural variations within the climate are relatively cyclical and the overall warming trend over the past 150 years has been an upward trend. Cyclical variations within our climate have not been able to account for the observations being made. Your leading statement of, "It's the sun!" does not shine any light on the current climate change we are observing.
That would be impossible to show!
They are perpetuating the claim by showing that the trend is warming. That's the object of the IP CC : "to show that CO2 causes warming".
If they had something to show that there is a natural forcing "increasing" temperatures over and above what they project, then they would really be screwed! That's why they had to go high on their projections.
C - Ocean temps are rising simply due to the lack of cloud cover since 1987. Read here : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/ocea...
Just look and see when was the last time that Solar activity was high, with both the PDO and the AMO in positive modes.
Yes you guessed it, right when we had the global warming scare.
1992 through 2006, at 0.28 C / decade.
Explained by:
"The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system."
Why does anyone believe the global Warming lie anymore? 1989-2004 on this chart: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http...
Or this: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a0105...
If you look for long term charts again the lies are staring you in your face. Data mislabeled, rural reporting sites closed leaving warmer city temps to average, etc. have been available to anyone actually looking for the truth. Scientific consensus is not even scientific. Such basic affronts to honesty should make everyone angry. So with that what does it matter what any of these liars mean?
The IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report has been leaked. And you know I have to start asking questions about it. Here is a statement I found odd:
"For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable internal climate variability. Variability sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (Figure Box SYR.1). Internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change." http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/pre-fod-syr03122013-fin.pdf
There's a lot I could ask here but hey, at least the IPCC has pointed out that it at least notices there's some sort of thing going on with temperatures for the past 15 years.
However, what I'd like to zoom in on is this: "Variability sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts ..." They are obviously trying to say that variability (i.e. the period over 1998-2012) is counteracting the long term warming trend.
Here's my question: Can you give an example of when natural variability ENHANCED the long term warming trend? (e.g. We would see a statement like: "Warming occurred much faster than predicted by climate models over this period likely due to a dramatic increase in solar activity.")
1998 El Nino.
the PDO cycle ending in 1998.
Kano: I don't email people on here. If you would like all the studies I have taken, will take, and are taking are located here: https://www.coursera.org/
It is a site run by actual scientists and teachers working in the field at various universities around the world. If you are interested look into the climate science section.
https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby...
It is a gift to be able to come up with an explanation of why you were wrong but at some point we can hope our teens grow up.
The pause is for land temps only the combined land and ocean temps are still warming. That is why 10 of the last 15 years have been the warmest ever recorded and this year is due to be close to top ten
