Fireworks in the EU Parliament over "the pause" in global warming

By using the term ‘denier’, he obviously meant Natural Climate Change Denier.
There are one helluva lot of them gorging themselves in the European parliament trough.

Icarus62:
I write to refute your disingenuous post at April 16, 2013 at 3:21 am. It says

I don’t really understand the point of all this crowing over the wiggles (largely unforced natural variability) in the global warming trend. It will only come back to bite you.

Oh, I am certain you do “understand”. It is the scientific practice of comparing prediction to reality.
The important fact of the recent halt to global warming needs to be stated and explained at every opportunity because we were told by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the recent halt is not possible.
This is stated in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words,
The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Richard

Godfrey Bloom deserves praise not only for his rhetoric, but also for alleviating Eurocratic economic misery. In a terse item, the Beeb reports that the European parliament will not do more to prop up the price of carbon:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22167675

icarus62:
Even by your standards, your post at April 16, 2013 at 4:35 am is daft.
It quotes my having said

“The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.“

Please note I reported with citation, link and quotation the IPCC expectation
”over the first two decades of this century”.
But you say

The actual warming rate is very close to that –
GISTEMP warming rate, °C per decade:
1973 – 2003: 0.16
1974 – 2004: 0.18
1975 – 2005: 0.17
1976 – 2006: 0.18
1977 – 2007: 0.17
1978 – 2008: 0.17
1979 – 2009: 0.16
1980 – 2010: 0.16
1981 – 2011: 0.17
1982 – 2012: 0.17

You cite GISTEMP which is extremely corrupted; see e.g.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
But that is trivial when you have cherry picked time periods only one of which pertains to data for the period 2000 to present.
If one wants to know how long it has been since there was any discernible global warming at 95% confidence then one has to start from now – any other date is ‘cherry picking’ – and consider back in time. Then one has to determine if global temperature trend differs from zero at the low confidence level of 95% which is used by ‘climate science’.
It turns out that – depending on which time series is analysed – the time of no recent discernible global warming at 95% confidence is between 16 and 23 years. In other words, discernible global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
Werner Brozek went further and – like you – ignored significance but he considered whether the global temperature trend was negative (i.e. suggested cooling) over periods of the past from now.
And people wanting more information on when global warming stopped can read the recent update on the matter by justthefactswuwt at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/14/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-the-pause-update/
He introduces his detailed review of all available data sets saying

From Werner Brozek’s recent article:

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month.

From those data points it appears that The Pause is at least 12 years old, but let us dig deeper into the observational data to see “The Pause” in “Earth’s Temperature”.

Of course, icarus62, that is factual reporting and so is of no interest to you.
“The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.“
There has been NO global warming so far this century according to each and all of the available data sets.
Richard

Icarus62:
I am pleased that in your post at April 16, 2013 at 5:47 am you have said something I agree.
You say

It’s good to be sceptical but you should also take full account of the weight of evidence.

YES!
So take full account of the weight of evidence. Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. The scare is over. Rejoice at this good news.
Richard