Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[waldo]

Waldo - and you wonder why I keep using the term bluster, blah, blah, blah......after all your blathering, you said absolutely nothing. What part of your own Skeptical Science article did you not understand? What use are references to 25 and 30 year timescales if you choose to ignore your own article highlighted in the passage above? Not sure there was anyone in class when you were doing your "schooling" . So - once again......on a 30+ n year timescale......

I said everything that needed to be said to clearly show you haven't even the most basic of understanding in how the IPCC models are run in relation to emission scenarios..... just one of your big-time fails in presuming to assign model accuracy in relation to model run range results and the observed decadal warming rate. Again, as you did, there is no legitimacy in your nonsensical attempt to estimate/assign accuracy against collectively grouped distinct iterative reports (and their related distinctly unique models), while you absolutely ignore that the model range results reflect upon the various iterative report/models being run against an assortment of varying emission scenarios..... respective emission scenarios that have varying degrees of likelihood occurence. Everything I detailed in my prior post clearly went right above and beyond your most miniscule of understanding. It's rather revealing you come back with a repeat quoted extract from your prior post... the extract which simply reinforces you know nothing about iterative IPCC reports and the associated model run processing of the iteratively distinct models/per report as relates to the models being run against iteratively distinct emission scenarios.

I'm most certainly not ignoring the/your quote... in significant detail, I've expounded on it to showcase the referenced range (0.10 to 0.35°C) reflects upon the results of model run processing as relates to the differing likelihood occurrences of the assorted emission scenarios. Again, the key point you're completely oblivious to!

as you requoted an extract from your most recent post, I will follow in kind with an extract from my last post that quotes statements from the IPCC accompanied with my suggestion on how you might actually/legitimately attempt to assign definitive accuracy using model range results that associate to an emission scenario that you interpret/assign as being the most likely to occur.

unless you're prepared to get into the details of each respective report/model grouping... while establishing a selected emission scenario as the 'most likely candidate'... or perhaps accepting some default/defacto 'business as usual (BAU)' emission scenario, you can't (as you've done) simply take overall model output range limits and presume to make a definitive assessment against the overall decadal warming rate. Of course, to a die-hard fake-skeptic like you, you would certainly favour a BAU that would factor little to no actual mitigation action/measures... of course!!! Without taking these significant detailed measures to account for iterative reports/models/emission scenarios (and settling on the likelihood scenario)... the best you can do reflects upon a statement within the referenced article, one that quotes from the IPCC, as follows:

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

my latest suggestion for you is to spend some cycles in going back over the various past IPCC reports and attempt to understand the related, distinctly unique/report, emission scenarios and how the models are grouped/run against the varying likelihood to occur emission scenarios. If you actually take up this suggestion it just may save you further embarassment.

.

[Keepitsimple]

So Waldo....lets sum it up without providing another page of your circuitous bafflegab. Your position is that a significant number of the computer models correctly predicted the almost 20 year lull in warming - that right? A yes or no would be nice. For once, could you simply state your position in a sentence or two?

[waldo]

keep it up Simple... I relish your infantile "bluster, blah, blah, blah... bafflegab" ranting!

Simple, answer this simple question: with your fixation on the particular models you've targeted, when they're purposely run against emission scenarios that presume either NO mitigation change in emissions... or actual varying degrees of increases in emissions, just what kind of associated warming rates would you attach to their outputs..... and how does that fit within the broad range numbers you so want to do your reeediculous juvenile arithmetic accuracy estimates against? After you answer these questions and in relation to them, as you say, "For once, could you simply state your position in a sentence or two?"

nice to read you get off your 1997/98 El Nino 17 year cherry-pick! But please, step-up and provide your interpreted support for a GLOBAL warming "lull".

[Keepitsimple]

keep it up Simple... I relish your infantile "bluster, blah, blah, blah... bafflegab" ranting!

Simple, answer this simple question: with your fixation on the particular models you've targeted, when they're purposely run against emission scenarios that presume either NO mitigation change in emissions... or actual varying degrees of increases in emissions, just what kind of associated warming rates would you attach to their outputs..... and how does that fit within the broad range numbers you so want to do your reeediculous juvenile arithmetic accuracy estimates against? After you answer these questions and in relation to them, as you say, "For once, could you simply state your position in a sentence or two?"

nice to read you get off your 1997/98 El Nino 17 year cherry-pick! But please, step-up and provide your interpreted support for a GLOBAL warming "lull".

Incredible. OMG Waldo! You're twisting yourself into a masochistic pretzel! Now you're denying that there has been a slowdown/lull/plateau in Global temperatures that has persisted for almost 20 years? It wasn't that long ago that we witnessed your gyrations in trying to explain that all the "missing heat" (from the "lull") was now stored in the oceans - and the schooling you received on that topic?

Edited June 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

nice to read you get off your 1997/98 El Nino 17 year cherry-pick! But please, step-up and provide your interpreted support for a GLOBAL warming "lull".

Incredible. OMG Waldo! You're twisting yourself into a masochistic pretzel! Now you're denying that there has been a slowdown/lull/plateau in Global temperatures that has persisted for almost 20 years? It wasn't that long ago that we witnessed your gyrations in trying to explain that all the "missing heat" (from the "lull") was now stored in the oceans - and the schooling you received on that topic?

like I challenged you..... "step-up and provide your interpreted support for a GLOBAL warming "lull"... the so-called "pause". And while you're doing that don't hesitate to link to that schooling you speak of... just provide the MLW post link(s). Thanks in advance.

.

[Shady]

Question:

Do the ridiculous and alarmist predictions count as part of the serial climate change disinformation?

[waldo]

Question:

Do the ridiculous and alarmist predictions count as part of the serial climate change disinformation?

from legitimate and reputable sources, don't hesitate to bring forward your described 'ridiculous and alarmist' predictions... and be prepared to support your claims of "ridiculous/alarmist". Thanks in advance.

[-1=e^ipi]

from legitimate and reputable sources, don't hesitate to bring forward your described 'ridiculous and alarmist' predictions... and be prepared to support your claims of "ridiculous/alarmist". Thanks in advance.

You know, you never did respond to my post regarding jetstreams and Rossby waves. I was hoping that we would come to an understanding about the physical mechanism and the expected effects.

[waldo]

You know, you never did respond to my post regarding jetstreams and Rossby waves. I was hoping that we would come to an understanding about the physical mechanism and the expected effects.

not this thread; see here:

[Keepitsimple]

like I challenged you..... "step-up and provide your interpreted support for a GLOBAL warming "lull"... the so-called "pause". And while you're doing that don't hesitate to link to that schooling you speak of... just provide the MLW post link(s). Thanks in advance.

.

Sorry Pal - I asked first. "Step up" and support your argument that there has been no "lull" or "hiatus" - and support your assertion that most of the models accurately predicted the observations of the past - almost 20 years. Thanks in arrears.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

from legitimate and reputable sources, don't hesitate to bring forward your described 'ridiculous and alarmist' predictions... and be prepared to support your claims of "ridiculous/alarmist". Thanks in advance.

Why from just legitmate and reputable sources? You'd agree that climate change disinformation can come from irreputable sources as well, right? Also, is Al Gore a reputable source? What about Paul Ehrlich a reputable source? What about David Suzuki? If not, why not.

[waldo]

Why from just legitmate and reputable sources? You'd agree that climate change disinformation can come from irreputable sources as well, right?

yes, clearly disinformation can come from irreputable sources... your affinity for the British tabloids is... legion!

.

Also, is Al Gore a reputable source? What about Paul Ehrlich a reputable source? What about David Suzuki? If not, why not.

if you're inclined, perhaps you should describe why each of those individuals would be, in your estimation, a reputable source... as an individual with the personal credibility/knowledge to speak on the subject matter and/or draw on the credibility of subject matter experts, directly or indirectly. In that regard, if there's something you'd like to bring to this thread, please proceed Governor.

.

[waldo]

Sorry Pal - I asked first. "Step up" and support your argument that there has been no "lull" or "hiatus"

that's rather infantile of you Simple. I've done that very thing several times now through an assortment of different threads. Why... just a few posts back in this thread you claimed "I was schooled concerning ocean warming in a prior thread"... I challenged you to provide the MLW link(s) of that "schooling" you speak of. I'm still waiting, Simple! As for your now claimed (infantile) asking first avoidance/backpedal, I don't seem to recall that at all; I've just now done a couple of searches on your posts and can't seem to find "your ask"... in kind, please provide your post link where you "asked first".

- and support your assertion that most of the models accurately predicted the observations of the past - almost 20 years. Thanks in arrears.

through all your model fixation I can't seem to recall you ever providing a source/cite that actually keys to your challenging claim. Since you picked out/focused on the IPCC models, what IPCC claim/statement/reference are you challenging in that regard... there really should be a target reference that you're bringing forward. What is it? In any case, I did provide you quoted statements from the IPCC... twice now, requoting a second time with an emphasis attachment to make sure you actually read them. Let's try again, for a 3rd time:

...

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

in any case, it's quite clear you have a significant comprehension problem. Your accuracy estimation nonsense seems to still prevail. I'll ask you the same/like question again: in line with how the models are run against respective emission scenarios, what related warming might you associate with a model run output that assumes significant emissions mitigation has occurred, or varying degrees of mitigation has occurred?... as compared to a model run that assumes no emissions mitigation has occurred?... as compared to a model run that assumes emissions have significantly increased, or varying levels of emissions increase has occurred? Of course, all of those varying model runs against the varying emissions scenarios reflect upon the range you presume to estimate accuracy on. Do you get it yet, Simple?

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo.....more bluster - more blah, blah, blah. Here's what I asked you - and you refused to answer except with more bafflegab.......

Bluster, blah blah, blah........once again, you refuse to simply state your position. By refuting Christy/Spencer's research - are you saying that all those computer models (or at least the majority of them) predicted the 17 year lull in warming? Pretty simple question - yes or no?

Why do you cower so....in the face of having to state a simple opinion. The warming hiatus is accepted knowledge - and yes - it's 17 years. Here's a CBC article that puts things in simple perspective for you - but you already know that.....it's just an inconvenient truth!

All this week climate scientists and government representatives from close to 190 countries met to finalize the IPCC’s fifth assessment for policymakers — a report focused on current climate science and computer models that attempt to predict future trajectories.

The report says there was a 15-year period between 1998 and 2012 where the temperature of land and air have flatlined, and referred to this as a "temperature hiatus."

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/earth-still-warming-despite-hiatus-canadian-scientist-says-1.1870918

[waldo]

nice try, Simple! How do these 2 following quotes of yours support your claimed "first ask"? Your first quote is speaking to model predictions... it has nothing to do with your subsequent false claim that you asked me to substantiate that there has been no lull/hiatus... "pause" in global temperature. As I said to you, I have provided previous support challenging the so-called global "pause"... in several past posts/threads. Remember your claim that I was "schooled" concerning ocean warming... by the way, this is now the 3rd time I'm asking you to provide the MLW link(s) for your claimed "schooling"... still waiting. So... to recap, in this thread, you refused my ask to support your claim concerning a global pause... in fact, as I recall, you've never provided anything to support your claim concerning a global pause in warming. And, of course, you continue to isolate on global surface... the cherry-picked El Nino start year... and a shorter-term period less than a climatic timeframe. I may choose to address the rest of your nonsense later - after the hockey game!

Bluster, blah blah, blah........once again, you refuse to simply state your position. By refuting Christy/Spencer's research - are you saying that all those computer models (or at least the majority of them) predicted the 17 year lull in warming? Pretty simple question - yes or no?

Sorry Pal - I asked first. "Step up" and support your argument that there has been no "lull" or "hiatus"

[Keepitsimple]

You're hopeless Waldo.....all your bluster and blah, blah, blah have simply defaulted you to these two positions:

1) You've refused to acknowledge that there has been a not insignificant hiatus/lull in land and satellite temperatures.
2) You cling to the notion that IPCC computer models have accurately predicted the observations of the last 15-20 years.

Funny thing is - it's not a big deal. If that's what you believe, fine. You are entitled to your opinions - but it would be refreshing to see you have some courage in your convictions instead of wasting a lot of screen real estate with your circuitous ramblings.

[waldo]

You're hopeless Waldo.....all your bluster and blah, blah, blah have simply defaulted you to these two positions:

1) You've refused to acknowledge that there has been a not insignificant hiatus/lull in land and satellite temperatures.

2) You cling to the notion that IPCC computer models have accurately predicted the observations of the last 15-20 years.

Funny thing is - it's not a big deal. If that's what you believe, fine. You are entitled to your opinions - but it would be refreshing to

see you have some courage in your convictions instead of wasting a lot of screen real estate with your circuitous ramblings.

oh my, Simple, Simple, Simple! You haven't the basic understanding to grasp what's been clearly and precisely presented for you! Let me outline your (latest) big-time fails:

- you natter on about a 'lull, hiatus, "pause" in warming... something you describe as "it's cooling"! Of course, in your purposeful fake-skeptic skewed world, you isolate that in a context that only gives consideration to surface air termperature... that area where less than 3% of global warming heat goes. In your skewed isolation, you purposely ignore that more than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans... the ocean heat content of the upper 2000m of the ocean continues to warm. Of course, you've been shown this in previous MLW threads; you conveniently choose to ignore/overlook this. It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason, Simple.

- you choose to incorrectly target a less than climatic range period; while doing so, you purposely cherry-pick a shorter-term trend start period that begins with the most significant 97-98 El Nino event. Notwithstanding your trending start cherry-pick, and keeping to your purposely skewed isolation on surface air temperature, all of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998... the warmest year on record was 2010. Of course, many predictions are estimating a 'possible 2014 occurence' of an El Nino, one anticipated to be the most impacting of the instrumental record - greater than that of your 97-98 cherry-pick... if that transpires, it will really mess with your fake-sceptic agenda, hey Simple! Also of significance is the fact there has been a higher 'than norm/typical' number of cooling La Lina events in the most recent years... you know, right Simple? - that part of natural variability you only choose to consider when it's convenient for you.

- within your purposeful skewed isolation in only considering air surface termperatures you conveniently ignore there has always been a recognized coverage bias within the instrumental records due to a lack of temperature measuring stations in isolated parts of the earth... this being particularly significant in relation to the most dramatic earth's warming occuring in the Arctic and the lack of coverage it receives within the instrumental records. Incomplete adjustment attempts have been made within (some of) the instumental record datasets to attempt to account for missing stations in the significantly warming Arctic; however, just recently (and in previous threads) I've highlighted the recent study that shows that global warming since 1997 is more than twice as fast as previously estimated (original study and update ) that relies upon the satellite record to 'infill' Arctic instrumental temperature measurements where none exist today. From the study:

Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s, which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997–1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

As I've indicated, as I'm aware to this point, this study appears to be holding up in terms of no formal challenges to it.

- with the above as a back-drop reference, it was you Simple that chose to introduce your interpretation of the failed Christy (Spencer) nonsense targeting so-called 'IPCC models', one I dispatched quite readily in this MLW post - here:

- with your focus on IPCC models, I challenged you to provide an IPCC quote/statement/reference as to "just what were you challenging" - you refuse to do so.

- I went to lengths to emphasize the proper climatic prediction/projection context for models... per your fake-skepic best, you refuse to acknowledge/accept this, choosing instead to align with a shorter term trending period, one you cherry-picked to the 97-98 El Nino event which "suppresses trends starting from that/your cherry-pick start point".

- I equally went to lengths to impress the point you have no clue as to how these models are run... that you have no basic understanding of the warming rate range that associates to the model output runs and how they're run against various emission scenarios that either factor no change in emissions, degrees of increasing change in emissions or degrees of decreasing change in emissions. In spite of presenting these significant distinctions to you, your comprehension failure still had you doing a ridiculous model accuracy estimate on that warming rate range... a juvenile math exercise that completely ignores the models are being purposely run against scenarios that will result in greater range spans given either lowered or raised emission levels. You remain completely oblivious to this most critical understanding.

- I've repeatedly provided you quoted statements from the IPCC speaking to model projections... somehow, none of this can break through the resilient fake-skeptic shell you reside in! Here, have another go at those IPCC statements:

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

you can continue to blather on with your, as you say, "bluster and blah, blah, blah" and call for "a courage in conviction". I've showcased your courage in refusing to provide support for your global warming pause claim, in refusing to provide an IPCC quote/statement/reference; one that you're actually challenging. Your lack of fundamental understanding, your purposeful agenda driven isolation, skewing, cherry-picking, etc., (your combined bluster, blah, blah, bah) has been laid bare... your fake-skeptic self has been showcased once again! Well done, Simple!

.

[Keepitsimple]

Once again Waldo - bluster, blah, blah, blah. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that there has been a lull/hiatus in land-based and satellite temperatures - and instead are now back to your old story of the deep oceans holding the "missing heat". Waldo - you were thoroughly schooled on that topic some time ago - not that the oceans may not be a factor - but that science is only starting to understand the role that oceans might be playing - and how large a role that might be. Here's an article from Nature - from earlier this year - that cuts through your continued bafflegab and covers both the hiatus and the theory/potential for oceans storing heat:

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

Link: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

As for the IPCC computer models.....here's what the same article said:

But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Once again Waldo - bluster, blah, blah, blah. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that there has been a lull/hiatus in land-based and satellite temperatures - and instead are now back to your old story of the deep oceans holding the "missing heat". Waldo - you were thoroughly schooled on that topic some time ago - not that the oceans may not be a factor - but that science is only starting to understand the role that oceans might be playing - and how large a role that might be. Here's an article from Nature - from earlier this year - that cuts through your continued bafflegab and covers both the hiatus and the theory/potential for oceans storing heat:

As for the IPCC computer models.....here's what the same article said:

and I should bother responding to you when your replies repeatedly begin with "bluster, blah, blah, blah"? Ok!

yes, failed journalism... an article the denialsphere really liked! So you found a journalist who phrases the slower rate of surface temperature warming as a "global warming hiatus"... which of course isn't the globe as it contextually falls right into your skewed isolation wheelhouse that centers only on air surface temperature while ignoring the oceans (where more than 90% of warming goes). Of course, the journalist also aligns with a/your shorter non-climatic trending timeframe and the cherry-pick attachment... your same cherry-pick... to the 97-98 El Nino event. And, interestingly given the date of the article, the journalist somehow fails to consider the coverage bias correction within the instrumental record that I just conveyed in my last post, or the preponderance of recent La Nina event years, etc. Well done Simple! You've clearly brought forward something new - whaaa! The “no warming for 16/17-years” is simply a well known/ployed climate change denialist trope... one you clearly relish!

and yes, you keep repeating this "schooling" mention (now bold-highlighted)... and I keep requesting you provide linked reference(s). Still waiting. As for your described "theory/potential" for, as you say, "oceans storing heat", I pointed you to the most recent 0-2000m Ocean Heat Content graphic from the U.S. NOAA OHC site... is this your "theory/potential"? Oh my! As has been hashed over in other MLW threads, of course many scientists are actively focused on attempting to explain the slower rate of surface temperature warming... it's what scientists do, hey Simple! You're certainly encouraged to bring forward what's being brought found in that regard... in tying it to this thread, you could even label some of it 'disinformation', if you're inclined. Have a go, hey Simple!

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for the IPCC computer models.....here's what the same article said:

This is consistent with NASA data and published analysis that demonstrates inaccurate understanding of the earth's heat budget for longwave radiation (into space) and GHG modeling as temperatures rise. The IPCC models were clearly wrong.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained.....

Edited June 5, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Keepitsimple]

yes, failed journalism... an article the denialsphere really liked! So you found a journalist who phrases the slower rate of surface temperature warming as a "global warming hiatus"...

Whoa.....you're really losing it now.....the Journal Nature and its writers are failures and deniers? Why is it so hard for you to accept that there has been/is a warming hiatus/lull/slowdown that was not predicted by the IPCC models and has not yet been fully explained? Parnoia has indeed set in.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Whoa.....you're really losing it now.....the Journal Nature and its writers are failures and deniers? Why is it so hard for you to accept that there has been/is a warming hiatus/lull/slowdown that was not predicted by the IPCC models and has not yet been fully explained? Parnoia has indeed set in.

nice try - it's an example of failed journalism... for the reasons I detailed. And that's not your Grandfather's Nature Journal there, hey Simple. The journal proper remains, effectively, 'sound'; however, it has as you should know, introduced less rigidly conforming standards in it's blog/news extensions. C'mon, don't you recall some of the usual suspect MLW fake-skeptics wigging out over a few Nature Journal blog/news entries brought forward in the relatively recent past? I could check if you were one of those!

.

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo - news articles that have credible sources might be easier for you to understand that your ocean-heat theory is only one of several unproven theories in the search for the "missing heat".....

It's a climate puzzle that has vexed scientists for more than a decade and added fuel to the arguments of those who insist man-made global warming is a myth.

Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth's average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates. Now, as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gather in Sweden this week to approve portions of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, they are finding themselves pressured to explain this glaring discrepancy.

The panel, a United Nations creation that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, hopes to brief world leaders on the current state of climate science in a clear, unified voice. However, experts inside and outside the process say members probably will engage in heated debate over the causes and significance of the so-called global warming hiatus.

"It's contentious," said IPCC panelist Shang-Ping Xie, a professor of climate science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. "The stakes have been raised by various people, especially the skeptics."
Though scientists don't have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories. Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.
The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.

Scientists have also offered other explanations for the hiatus: lack of sunspot activity, low concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and other marine-related effects. These too remain theories.

Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923

Edited June 5, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As has been hashed over in other MLW threads, of course many scientists are actively focused on attempting to explain the slower rate of surface temperature warming... it's what scientists do, hey Simple! You're certainly encouraged to bring forward what's being brought found in that regard... in tying it to this thread, you could even label some of it 'disinformation', if you're inclined. Have a go, hey Simple!

Waldo - news articles that have credible sources might be easier for you to understand that your ocean-haet theory is only one of several theories in the search for the "missing heat".....

nothing new there Simple... as I said, scientists actively engaged, "attempting to explain the slower rate of surface temperature warming"

.

[waldo]

This is consistent with NASA data and published analysis that demonstrates inaccurate understanding of the earth's heat budget for longwave radiation (into space) and GHG modeling as temperatures rise. The IPCC models were clearly wrong.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained.....

c'mon Simple... this, from just a few posts back... talking about your guy Spencer!!! Is there a reason you have nothing to say on it? Were you checking the active threads and did you notice a couple I pulled up that speak to the study mentioned? Is that why you're so quiet on this... cause it's all about another example of a failed Spencer study, one where he's shown (once again) to purposely cherry-pick data in an attempt to disparage models. Where it shows that all the hi-jinks surrounding the publication of that failed paper are revealed... where it was manipulated by the Heartland Institute to get it pushed along through the mainstream media. Hey now, but again, in relation to your recent rant about "media sensationalism", was that yet another kind of the sensationalism you're actually accepting to, that you like... that you really like?

is that why you're so quiet about the above quoted post? There should have been previous MLW posted waldo clues for the uninformed parroters; oh wait, there are: here and here ... and of course, there's the active Dressler 2011 rebuttal to that Spencer nonsense - this handy vid from Dressler says it all:

or how about a summary article that provides a fairly objective accounting... pay particular attention to a couple of closing and very telling statements from your guy Spencer; these statements:

Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer." When asked why his work failed to gain mainstream acceptance, Spencer cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment.