mhaze, wrote about the so called hiatus; the Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic Oceans say otherwise. They have been pouring out warmth.

Mhaze, also wrote, “There was the climate science around the hockey stick. Oh wait, that was proven wrong.”
Many subsequent papers have been published showing that the hockey stick concept was correct, Dr Mann has commented that subsequent studies were more sophisticated than his.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/01/206340/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated-penn-state/

With the huge fuss deniers have made in relation to the so called climategate, ExxonMobil management trying to shut down climate science does have a bearing in any comments.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

In relation to other points, I have references for all the points below:
There is a cold water area that is South of Greenland in the North Atlantic, the best explanation being caused by melt water and ice sheet collapse off Greenland.
The trend line in relation to Artic disintegration is continuing, how do you explain Barrow being inundated by 11-13 foot waves earlier in 2015.

Queensland continues to have a drought, I believe there are areas in NSW as well. Tasmanian farmers are stating that there have been 3 seasons where precipitation has been down, they suggest the “d word” is not far off. The fire season is already happening in Tasmania months ahead of usual indicating dry soil structure. They are experiencing drought at the Solomon Islands according to a friend who has just come back from a visit.

Near hot bulb temperature have been experienced in a number of countries this year causing the death of thousands of people in India, Pakistan, Japan, Middle Eastern countries and Cyprus. Hospitals were overrun. Full on hot bulb conditions are deadly for healthy people where there is a combination of high humidity and high temperature.
To be continued

ant...come on. Now you're clutching at straws.

" so called hiatus"
You might wish it weren't real but even the IPCC acknowledges that there has been a pause.

"Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic Oceans....have been pouring out warmth."
Based on the Argo data for depths 0 - 2000 metres:
Trend for Pacific Ocean - +.009 degrees /decade.
Trend for North Atlantic Ocean - +.007 degrees /decade.
Trend for Indian OCean - +.067degrees / decade.

ie no statistically significant warming in any of those places.
This by the way is adjusted data. The raw data is even worse for your assertions. Sorry to confront you with real data but some of us think its rather important.

So M. Mann has confirmed that his graphs was correct. Well colour me convinced. Again even the IPCC doesn't want to talk about his assertions any more and AR5 reintroduced the MWP/LIA to the conversation - things that the hockey stick was designed to get rid of.

So there are droughts here and there. Wow must be caused by mankind. I'm wondering however if there might have been droughts prior to 1950. Just a thought. If there were then perhaps they were caused by natural events and maybe, therefore, the current droughts are just part of the natural cycle. Worth considering?

Q, will the AGW scare brigade stop making their outrageous claims when they have been successfully convicted of economic treason & economic terrorism?

A number of scientific papers published since the IPCC's last Report have stated the so called "hiatus" did not happen. The trend line over many decades is still going up.

Over the last couple of years there has been an area of the Eastern portion of the North Pacific where temperatures have been very high, it had been termed "the blob". The blob extended from California to Alaska. Many sea organisms have died, others had to be rescued. There are many references to "the blob".

Drought is one of the matters of extreme weather; there has been drought in Europe, California, Brazil, Caribbean, Colombo, Solomon Islands, apart from Australia in 2015. Drought in the Amazon Basin is quite a serious matter, a potential tipping point. There have been a number of droughts over the last decade in the Amazon Basin; a serious matter which is silly to try and minimize. Deforestation is the issue which impacts on the water cycle and climate; deforestation being an aspect of changing climate.

No comments about the Greenland ice sheet melting; you might like to comment on "drunken trees". Deniers are not able to comment in any kind of sensible way on "drunken trees".

You have set yourself up as an expert; mhaze, suggesting you know more than scientists, on that basis you should be able to decipher what’s happening in relation to data presented by Copernicus:

http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg!Methane!Surface!120!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015101200!!/

http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg!Carbon%20dioxide!Surface!120!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015101200!!/

Go to 850hPa and 500hPa etc and you can find out what is happening at various levels in the atmosphere.
CO2 levels were about 280 ppm pre Industrial Revolution, and methane levels were around 780 ppb

mhaze, you try to downplay ExxonMobil management ignoring the advice of their on climate scientists in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, despite there having been a number of enquires into the so called "climategate" all investigations cleared the scientists. Deniers have pushed "climategate" as though it was a knockout punch; it still comes up from time to time. Nonsense proved wrong.

In relation to ExxonMobil, scientists were interviewed or unambiguous quotes were provided in the series of articles. US Senator Whitehouse has stated that he is considering taking legal action.

The Union of Concerned Scientists gained access to documentation of ExxonMobil and came to the same conclusion that lay management had ignored the information provided by their scientists about climate change. Not only did management ignore the advice of their scientists but they sought to undermine the science itself.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.ViANnH4rLIU

A quote from Union of Concerned Scientists's document:

"Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

The fundamental premise of climate change is that CO2 and infrared light react; it was known decades before the 1970s, The ARM 11 year study taking in thousands of bits of data showed the premise to be upheld in two outdoor settings in Oklahoma and Alaska.
Those who disagree with climate science do not have such a solid foundation for their views.

A recently published paper (September 2015) regarding the so called "hiatus" stated in abstract:
"...We find compelling evidence that recent claims of a “hiatus” in global warming lack sound scientific basis...."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y

ant,

Here's what the IPCC says about drought....
"[T]he AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Owing to the low confidence in observed large-scale trends in dryness combined with difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term climate change, there is now low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land since the mid-20th century to human influence. "

Stripped of bureaucratese this means that the IPCC scientists have no real evidence that drought is a worsening problem or that, if it is, that its caused by man ie if its getting worse then its part of the natural cycle.

As with most things, those of a certain leaning will accept as gospel what the IPCC says when it suits and ignore it when it says what they don't want to hear.


I am aware that some people are working to get rid of the pause. It's done by adjusting the data.The data for the period pre-2000 is changed so that it appears cooler, temps for the period post-2000 are adjusted up. That's the way climate science works - very sad really.
There are several datasets for temps over the preceding decades. The consensus of these is that there was and remains a pause. But again, since things like the satellite data shows things you prefer weren't true, they are ignored.

I'm aware that companies work to change the politics to their advantage. What Exxon did/does is hardly shocking. Your problem is that you assume that because Exxon et al wanted to shift the debate this way or that, that anyone who even partially agrees with their view must have been influenced and/or bought by them.

Its part of the basic philosophy of the true beleiver. To them, the truth is so obvious that anyone who disagrees is either a fool or has been bought. It doesn't compute that honest people can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.

Of course the multi-national meme can work both ways. Has Greenpeace influenced/ bought the alarmist scientists?