Myth 1 – Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming.
Myth 2 – Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
Myth 3 – There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming.
Myth 4 – The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate.
Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.

As for the debate on the “trend over the last 5- 10 years,” what part of the cooling effects of La Niña and minimum solar illumination, which will subtract from the other factors causing global warming don’t you understand? !! Each time these reasons for the Hadley group’s explanation of the trend is mentioned, you just come back citing the “raw data.” T That is why the data is classified as raw; the effects of all the forcing functions have not been accounted for. The REAL scientists do look for the FULL explanation, not just cherry-picking among the “raw data” for a subset that will fit their agenda.

Selfish, but true. We’re here for our OWN survival. People are just beginning to realize that weather and climate is pretty cool stuff. So is being on the Earth, too. Lots of stuff to debate and wonder about.

So let’s see where global warming exists on my life’s worry list:

1. Happiness
2. Health
3. Family/friends
4. Job
5. Income
6. Safety
X.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…
999,999,999,999,999. Global Cooling
1,000,000,000,000,000. Global Warming

Wow, what does that say? All the fuss in any direction seems rather futile.

Let’s embrace the chaos of the future climate. At least it’ll be interesting.

;o)

What “disinformation?” You wrote that the Hadley Center predicted there was a 50/50 chance of warming of 0.3 degree Celsius from 2004 to 2014. I asked if you were willing to put any money behind that claim. So far, you have not been willing.

“As I said, I’m not going to take a bet over a few year period.”

Do you not understand the proposed betting method? I’m proposing to bet on 5-year, or even 7-year, averages centered on a particular year. Particularly if it’s a 7-year average centered on a particular year, “short term weather factors like La Nina” don’t come into play. That’s because both comparison periods would presumably include such an event.

But that’s OK. If you don’t understand the proposed betting method, that’s fine. Let’s go back to the original proposed bet. You said that the Hadley Center predicted a 50/50 chance of warming from 2004 to 2014. I asked you if you’ll put your money where your mouth is. One possibility I proposed is 7-year averages centered around 2004 and 2014. How about that?

“Everybody knows it but it HAS been warming .15°C per decade…”

Yes, we know what has happened in the past. But no one knows for certain what will happen in the future. The 2007, the Hadley Center predicted there is a 50 percent chance of warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014. In 2000, Michaels and Balling predicted a warming of 0.15 degrees per decade to 2050.

So which is it? Is there a 50/50 chance of warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014? If there is, you should be willing to take the bet I’ve offered, i.e. seven-year averages, centered around 2004 and 2014. If the 7-year average centered around 2014 is 0.3 deg Celsius or more higher than the 7-year average centered around 2004, you would win the bet. If it’s less than 0.30 deg Celsius higher, I would win the bet. I’m willing to bet any amount, up to $50.

Once again, how about it?

“Since you are clearly a Delayer-1000, if we follow you, then in the second half of the century, we’ll probably be going up over 0.3°C per decade.”

Heh, heh, heh! Is that the best you can do? Grade-school name calling and voodoo curses? Why don’t you stick to science, if you can?

“Hadley did NOT say 0.3°C per decade.”

OK…so we both agree the rate will be below 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade after the 2004 to 2014 period? Or don’t you agree that the rate will be below 0.3 degrees Celsius after the 2004 to 2014 period? Which is it? What, in your opinion, are the 50-percent probability values for warming from 2004-2014, and then 2014 to 2024, and 2024 to 2034, etc.?

“It (the Hadley Center) just said 2014 would have a 50% chance of being that much higher BECAUSE of unusual factors that have been keeping global temperatures on the low side in the past few years.”

OK. So the Hadley Center said there was a 50% chance that global surface temperature will warm by 0.3 degrees Celsius from 2004 to 2014. Do you agree that’s an accurate assessment? If you do, you should be willing to bet on 7-year averages centered around those two years (i.e., that the average from 2011 to 2017 will be at least 0.3 degrees Celsius higher than the average from 2001 to 2007).

Do we have a bet?

No, it doesn’t. What we know about the physics of greenhouse gases, that we know greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere, that we know humans have been the source for most of that increase, and that every direct and proxy solar measurement ran counter to the warming is what tells us about the reasons for the warming.

Now that is a perfect example of a non sequitur. The warming itself does not tell us anything about the reasons for the warming. And similarly, noting that it has recently cooled does not automatically prove any hypotheses about the reasons for the cooling.

Maybe the past ten years’ temperature development is just weather, a.k.a. noise. We’ll be a lot wiser in 2030.