I read that pdf from the Met Office that you posted, and whether because you're stupid or because you're a liar, what it actually says is completely opposite what you said about it.
http://www
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...
Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999–2008 are statistically consistent with those (predicted). Field significance is assessed by comparing the total area of inconsistent grid boxes with the range of similar area values derived by testing the consistency of trends in each simulated decade with ... simulated decades. The 5.5% of the data area that is inconsistent in the observed case is close to the median of this range of area values, indicating the differences are not field significant. Inconsistent trends in the midlatitude Southern Hemisphere strongly resemble the surface temperature pattern of the negative phase of the SAM, which did indeed show a negative trend in the last decade.
These results show that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capable of reproducing the current slowdown in global temperature rise. Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment