By John West (elevated from a comment in Unthreaded Weekend, inspired by Casey at the Bat)
Welcome to the WUWT Sports channel! For the debut game we have “The Cause” vs. “The Skeptics”:
First inning: Gavin Schmidt is up to bat for “The Cause”.
Norman Page steps to the mound and blisters one in:
“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”
“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 - 0.3 deg/decade]”
And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):
Page steps down to give John Henriksen a chance; He gives it all he’s got with this pitch:
“what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”
Schmidt swings again:
”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”
And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:
Richard Wakefield steps up and pitches:
”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”
“AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”
Hit……..Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW. If sea level rise remains constant or drops I find it hard to believe that wouldn’t damage the AGW case among both laymen and impartial scientists considering how many times temperature increase has been connected to sea level rise and the “it’s accelerating” touted as proof it’s anthropogenic. Later in the same thread: “Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?” — Wakefield; ”Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). – gavin”. So, if SLR is caused by AGW and SLR stops where does that leave AGW? A cause without its signature effect? LOL.
Now, Steve Shaw takes the mound, digs in, and throws a curve ball:
”To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. ….. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.”
Schmidt doesn’t swing:
It’s in there, right through the strike zone into the catchers mitt: Obviously, this question is absolutely germane to the “debate”, if we can’t answer “yes”, and explain why in a Willis type elevator speech, then, what the heck is all the hullabaloo about? But instead of commenting with what should be an “easy” answer, this question is relegated to The Bore Hole (#383).
Strike 3; You’re OUT!
Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.