The rest of us have more choices than those two, David.

I mean Rob.

You said:
A single climate model gives us a preliminary result that "suggest[s] that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade".

Realists would never use a GCM as an indicator of anything but whimsical what if scenarios.
It is the actual measured reality that states imfatically that the warming has stopped, not some inaccurate model.

Reality bites doesn't it?

Troll, did you read the abstract of the study, conveniently linked by both the Telegraph piece and Page's writeup here?

"Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model....Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast:..."

They fed observations into a model (which is pretty much standard practice) and used it to produce a forecast. By your own admission, since this is "some inaccurate [climate] model" making the prediction, it is a "whimsical what if scenario" in your eyes -- which doesn't seem to stop you from taking it as proven observation.

My statement above still stands.

I am beginning to think that you are doing this on purpose. Whatever the reason, you are emphatically linguistically challenged. But that aside, your posts are sounding more fantastical by the day. All of these claims that AGW is somehow losing credibility as a theory are what I find "whimsical."

Fern Mackenzie

Sometimes, I just type too fast and it comes out "fonetically."
Sometimes it is just fun to see what VJ will have to say about it.

As for AGW losing credibility, I don't think there is any question of it.
The only debate on that point is around how fast it is happening.

The more people read and become informed, the faster it happens.
A recent poll actually measured the effect and reported it in an article tittled I believe: "the more you know about globalwarming the less worried you are about it"

Petition To Stop Climate Alarmism Trumps Gore’s $300 Million Effort In Just 8 Days

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/news/sections/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20080430005814

"Research shows the world will cool until 2015!"

"Hey, the research uses climate models. Didn't you say models are unreliable?"

"Argh, I'm going to throw smoke bombs!"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

What's your point.

Grassfire petition claims it trumps Alliance for Climate Protection's petition. "Trump" is defined as "To get the better of, or finesse, a competitor."

Grassfire petition: 100,000 signatures in 8 days = 12,500 signatures per day.

Alliance for Climate Protection: 1,000,000 signatures in 31 days: 32,258 signatures per day.

My point is that these fellows' vocabulary is as bad as your spelling.

Bi's point -- more pertinent here -- is that you're trying to divert attention from your blatant waffling flip-flop. Do you trust models, or don't you?

Never have.
The models were never intended to be used as predictors.
They were merely intended to test specific components of a given theory. The modelers now admit this since GCMs as climate predictors have always failed miserably.

Nothing delusional about it.
All the signs have been obvous to anyone that can read for over a year now.
The Faithful have simply dinied reality.

Ironic isn't it?

Okay, let's pretend it's not a La Nina year. That can be fun. Now let's consider the obvious signs. Hmmm, would these include last autumn's record Arctic sea ice melt? Or are you just writing a bunch of stupid stuff to live up to your username here?

Ummm. Do some research Steve.
Months ago NASA blamed wind patterns.
Now the “Consensus” is that soot, smog and haze is responsible.
Bottom line: Nobody has any idea really.
The only thing known for sure is that it has all happened before.
I even saw a mention of Warming Island on this site recently.
Well, like so many other myths spread by warmists, that one was shown to be false as well.
Warming Island is depicted on old maps of Greenland from long long ago.
And the Myth goes on…..

I wasn't the one making some vague claim about things being obvious for over a year to anyone who could read. In some years wind does push multi-year ice out of the Arctic. And I'm sure soot contributes to melt. Were those things greater than usual last year in the Arctic? I appreciate urls when you try to explain things to me. When was it obvious to anyone who could read that AGW and Arctic ice melt weren't related? I suspect the two are related, and most people who could read probably thought Arctic ice melt was an obvious sign of warming last September.
But you don't seem to think Arctic sea ice melt says anything informative. What was so obvious more than a year ago?

help me communicate w/u

Global cooling alarmist.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

the next ice age is not due any century now.

And apparently you have a very poor understanding of how glaciations are initiated. What it takes is warm winters, which means more snow fall, and cool summers, which means that snow doesn't melt.

The driver of glaciation is the Milankovic cycles, which govern the shape and attitude of earth's orbit and rotation. There are three of them: orbital eccentricity, which has a nominal period of ~100,000 years; axial tilt, which has a nominal period of~ 41,000 years; and precession, or wobble of axis, which has a nominal period of ~23,000 years.

At first glance, the 1000,000 year period of earth's orbital eccentricity seems a perfect match for the nominal ~100,000 year period of the glaciations of the past 1,000,000 years or so, but the ice core paleorecord tells us that the exact period and length of a glaciation and interglacial is not constant or even consistent. The timing and length varies by several even tens of thousands of years.

That's because the amount of variation in solar insolation--the amount of solar energy falling onto the surface of earth--caused by earth's eccentric orbit alone is not sufficient to initiate the onset or end of a glaciation. It takes the coincidence of two or all three of the cycles to determine when and how rapid and how severe the onset of a glaciation will be.

Because axial tilt determines how much insolation the poles receive in winter, it affects the strength of earth's winter season. Counter-intuitively, less tilt produces a warmer polar winter, which yields higher polar snowfall, and thus promotes ice sheet growth.

Precession is the final kicker. It determines which pole faces toward the sun at earth's closest and furthest points of its eccentric elliptical orbit. When earth's northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun when earth is at its furthest point from the sun, then northern hemisphere winters will be most severe. Meanwhile, summer will occur at earth's closest approach to the sum, making it much warmer.

At present eccentricity is almost at minimum, producing only a 6% difference in solar insolation between earth's closest approach to the sun, or perihelion, in January and aphelion in July, out of a potential maximum difference of 20-30%. No danger of the next ice age from eccentricity any time soon.

Axial tilt is presently at 23.5° out of a range of 21.5° to 24.5°. No danger of semi-permanent warm polar winters for quite a while yet either.

As for precession, at present earth's closest approach to the sun is near winter solstice, while aphelion is near the summer solstice, thus moderating northern hemisphere winters and summers. This should induce a warmer Arctic winter with more precipitation, but it's being counteracted by the steep tilt of earth's axis, which produces a colder Arctic winter.

If this current peak in precession coincided with the peak of one of the other two cycles, it would initiate a new glaciation. But it does not coincide, so it is not going to bring on a new glaciation. Based on the very predictable Milancovic cycles the next ice age isn't due for another 10,000 to 15,000 years minumum, perhaps as much as 40,000 to 50,000 years.

In other words, we are fortunate to live in one of the longer lived interglacials. And that's a very good thing.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good global warming denial argument.

If you check out "About Us" on the upper right you will see that this website is about examining dishonest PR tactics on global warming. So people who choose to can check out the bad guys' websites for themselves, having been forewarned.

Hogwash.

Note how even the most alarmist of the act-now people don't expect us to reach even 350 ppm (and according to Joe Romm (climateprogress.org), while 450ppm is possible, it'll take a LOT of effort), and that the historical "natural cycles" level is around 280ppm.

...Meanwhile, Tim "Friends of Oil" Ball starts spreading FUD about 200ppm or even 120ppm.

Hogwash is right.