Yea, they will try to claim something like that, but probably will also switch metrics to ocean heat. This is indeed a better measure of global warming, as that is where most of the energy is. It also allows them to model whatever they want as to when the ocean will release its heat. Global warming will always be potentially around the corner if they switch to this new measurement, but they will lose out on the immediate danger of pointing out record temperatures, except when they adjust the temperature records.

It wasn't just NOAA and the Met Office. Ben Santer pegged it at 17 years. Tamino put up a blog post about betting odds, of how likely it is to see a new record. He also pegged it at 14-15 years. Since then HadCrut has been redone to show new records and 1998 is no longer the record.

To me, this is a dead issue. It seems to be an issue made up entirely for the sake of taxation.

We know fossil fuels are a limited resource. We know that nuclear power can be produced safely, cleanly, and cheaply. If the warmers actually beleived their own hype, they would not be fighting the repubs, they would be working with the repubs to promote nuclear power.

Having looked into the research, it is clear that CO2 is a GHG that will cause some warming. What is also clear is that their precious models are unstable. Small changes have the models shooting off to infinity in either direction. IF (a big IF) the earth were that unstable, then the times when we have had CO2 concentrations of 2200 ppm and 7000 ppm in the past, would have ended all life on this planet. That didn't happen. We are still here.

You all are debating as to whether there is a "pause" or not. You are literally debating as to whether the temps are 0.05 degrees different. What is clear is that the models are crap. There is no exponential change in temps, nor will there be. If those models are right (which they are showing more incorrect every year) there would be no life on the planet.

On their side, however, fossil fuels are a limited resource. we should be working toward more sustainable resources in an intelligent manner. Not taxing the heck out of the US, but working with what we have and a conservative estimate of what future technologies we will have.

C,

The only pause is in surface temps? What the heck does that mean, given the surface temps are what is affected by AGW??? The temps hiding in the oceans again with massive ice increases??? That warming is a tricky little bugger, ain't it. It just hides here and hides there. That little rascal.

Your only way of getting heat into the oceans via AGW is by surface temp increases. Do you think "pollution" is making the sky clearer and more able to obtain radiative heat from the sun???

All of your primary measures for saying that AGW is happening in the first place was due to the SURFACE TEMPS. If there is a pause in the surface temps warming, there is a pause. This crap of looking at one measure when it suits your purpose and looking at another when it doesn't IS NOT SCIENCE. Multiplicity is a known problem to real scientists.

Mike,

Yeah, got to love the ose of ocean warming. 3000 measurement devices for 181 million square miles.... What could possibly go wrong with that. I am certain that they will be able to get answers within 0.01 degrees for the entirety of the oceans.

OK maybe not. I am certain that they will PRETEND to be able to attain this level of accuracy. Plus you get to add in a whole bunch of "corrections" based upon ocean movement. Anyone want to lay odds on most of the "corrections" making the temps in the past colder and temps now and in the future warmer???

If you where interested in the science rather than rhetorical nonsense and childish cartoons you might have noticed we have already had a period of no warming that lasted more than 15 years, odd given how many time I've seen you and other deniers try to talk about the PDO event of the 1940's-1970's (although technically it was two events with only a small reprieve ~1960.

It's hard not to note you link to a number of science sites talking about a 'pause' as long as 15 years not being very likely, but 15 years of pause (or cooling) is the denier fantasy and a fantasy not supported by any of the facts the 1990's was the warmest decade it was replaced by the decade of 2000's the first 4 years of the next decade of the 2010's is warmer than the first four years of the 2000's.

The warmest two years in the modern record are not 15 years ago but 2005 & 2010, nine and just four years ago and the year just gone (2013) is the fourth warmest in the modern record.

Deniers keep bleating about pauses and cooling and that the models are always wrong, yet the IPCC estimate over a decade ago was that average temp rise per decade was going to be ~0.11c per decade and what was the rise from the 90's to the 00's (0.36°C to 0.56°C) a rise above the model estimate, yet deniers still keep posting fiction that we have fallen below the estimates.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...

Deniers try to play similar tricks with Arctic sea ice data when there is an occasional spike in ice extent, usually with the matching "ice is recovering" chant, there have been a couple of these since 2010 and each time it's a short term effect and as soon as it passes deniers go right back to saying the data is not accurate, the same data they where just using to try and make their own point, this to me is the comical world of denial. For much of this Arctic ice season Arctic sea ice has remained down near the 2011/12 low so this season deniers have not wanted to mention it at all.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...

But I guess they will simply try to ignore this just as they try to ignore the long term trend in Arctic sea ice or post fictional and easily disproved stories about what the Arctic sea ice was doing 50-100 years ago.

But even when deniers try such nonsense they can't get it right, Watts posted such a story about an early nuclear sub, at the North Pole, but he failed to edit out the comment by a member of the crew Quoted by John Daly in the story, which talks about Polynyas, a largely unknown phenomena in the late 1950's but now much better understood to occur in sea ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Yet still in his ignorance Watts thinks he has a story here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya

So, it is OK that we can answer all of your questions by answering this generic question of yours, ">>Given the above, how did the IPCC derive a 95% confidence that fossil fuel CO2 is responsible for most of the recent warming?<<"? How hot! ... uh, I mean .... COOL! :)

How does the IPCC derive a 95% confidence that that fossil fuel CO2 is responsible for most of the recent warming? They use a process known as "the process of elimination". What else could have influenced the warming?

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance ) for the sun worshipers among us:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/c... Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.ph...

Well, no. This trend line would result if a cooling phase and not a warming phase.

What about the oscillations? The ENSO, PDO and NAO?

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forc...

The ENSO would show a cooling trend. The PDO is pretty much doing its thing showing a slight downward trend since the mid 1980's. The same looks to be happening with the NAO. The thing is that these oscillations do not drive the long term climate trend. They are all too short in duration to do so and they do not create nor do they destroy heat. They help to transport heat energy.

CO2 does not create heat energy either. It does redirect outgoing heat energy back towards the surface of the planet. You know, the greenhouse effect. What has CO2 been doing lately?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co... Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M...

Well looky here! Seems like CO2 is on the rise and so are global temperatures - http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/i... Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Well, Ottawa Mike, the IPCC can be 95% confident that fossil fuel CO2 is responsible for most of the recent warming. Do you want to ask me how they know the CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels? Here -

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

But, you already knew all of this Ottawa Mike. You just like to jack us around a little bit. Silly, boy. You play too many games!

What keeps fossil fuel means of CO2 from the warming the climate beyond the natural variations within the climate, Ottawa Mike? Every scientist in the world would be interested in your answer, if it is shown that you know how to counter the effects of the CO2 warming our climate from our burning of the fossil fuels.

You have to understand that the science is settled and we need to spend trillions of dollars to fight off CAGW. You also have to understand that the science is new and climatologist are wrong on their predictions about 99.99% of the time. So...

1. "Trust me. I'm an expert. I know what I'm talking about. There is no way temperatures will plateau for 15 years."

2. "This is all really new to me. I honestly had no clue what I was talking about when I said there was no way temperatures would plateau for 15 years. I now know that there is no way temperatures will plateau for more than 25 years. Trust me. I'm an expert. I know what I'm talking about."

I followed the predictions of this site http://sportbetting.toptips.org and I'm very pleased. You can test it for free. It's an incredible system that tells you very easy to use predictions bases on stats, patterns and trends.

Liberals have short memories.

And they hate it when people like you point out that the climate science community was 95% certain a 15 year pause could not happen. Now the models allow for a pause of "a decade or more."

I suspect if we have another flat five years, the models will change again. And the libs will be singing the same old song.

Edit: 4 TD's, keep them coming, libs.

They write the rules as they go along. That is (or should be) the way that models are developed: use known-data of the past to project the way chaos will go in the future. They'd be fine if politics were not a major factor.

Models again Mike? You know that are still inaccurate in many respects. amd you skeptics are still almost exclusively referred to by skeptics to illustrate flaws.

There has yet to be a pause in AGW and there is unlikely to be one this century. the only paude we have seen is in surface temps, but AGW is still going strong.

Skeptics here have been erroneously been harping about a nonexistent pause for months and this goes back to 2012, based on a lie by David Rose in an article from DailyMail with just about every denier blog accepting his premise as fact, even though debunked back then by the MET

Ottawa Mike, perhaps you would like to rephrase your not even thinly veiled rant in the form of a real question.

Here is what climate models told us five years ago (2009):

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

"Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and “we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,” the Hadley Centre group write." http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Kerr.Science.2009.pdf

So the message at the time was that the pause of 10 years (at that time) was not unusual in climate models but 15 years is "rare" or would "create a discrepancy".

Here is the latest word from the Met Office (and Hadley Centre in the UK) (2013):

"Second, climate model simulations suggest that we can expect such a period of a decade or more to occur at least twice per century, due to internal variability alone."

"... the results also show that beyond periods of 20 years and longer, a pause of that duration occurring from natural, internal variability in the absence of other changes in external forcing appears to be unlikely." http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

So now, a decade or more is not unusual for a pause but periods of 20 years are now unlikely. We went from "ruling out" "rare" 15 years pauses to expecting them to occur twice per century due to natural variation alone. A 20 year pause is the new rare norm.

In five years, do you expect climate models will show us that pauses of up to 25 years are common? Or do you think we won't be talking about this any more?

They will accurately predict what happened in the previous five years.