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.
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
They used up their last time out, but the referee is on their payola.
A “save the theory at all costs” analysis will certainly be forthcoming.
Ah, you sceptics! You don’t understand programming computer models…. OBVIOUSLY, that “15” figure is in hexadecimal, base 16. We still have 6 more years to go!
(I should be careful. That reason is so stupid it might get picked up at the warmist sites.)
The ‘team’ is busily working as we speak…
http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/goalposts.jpg
Pachauri says we have to wait 30-40 years.
But all of the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 22 years?
I’m sure their excuse will be something like: “we know much more now than we did in 2008.. it needs a longer interval; we’re just not going to tell you how long”
“Climate morons” is an understatement. Here’s the quote again:
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more…”
Someone has taken Trenberth’s raving about redefining the Null Hypothesis seriously. The claim in quotes is an empty tautology. Given sufficient readout resolution of the measurements used in the statistical calculation, the apparent trend line will ALWAYS have a nonzero slope. (However the magnitude of the slope can be quite small at times.) BFD.