List of excuses for ‘the pause’ now up to 29

The last time I wrote about this, it was ten:

top10_pause_explanations

Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming (thanks to The Hockey Schtick).  

“If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”
RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming

An updated list of at least 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings: 

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol 

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

About these ads

128 thoughts on “List of excuses for ‘the pause’ now up to 29

  1. Maybe some duplication on the list, e.g. 5 &12? Whichever way you cut it, the warmists would be embarrassed about it if it ever got into the public domain. Just as well for them that the msm are still onboard .

  2. I know you are not inviting comments on the Seitz post. But really, linking to his page (how do they still let him be attributed to Harvard?) he claims 13 publications. Now, for a supposed Physicist, this is a dismal reputation. In my previous lives as an academic manager I have instituted unsatisfactory performance proceedings against such dead wood.

    Anthony, these people have nothing in their armoury other than despicable ad homs. They are emblematic of the forces of ignorance promoting the AGW scam.

    Keep morale high!

    Lazlo

  3. I’m sorry..but everyone keeps ignoring the most obvious

    …it was the ban on hairspray and big hair

  4. I find it rather interesting, that many of the signs they point to (the few that make any sense), to indicate possible reasons for lack of warming…. are actually indicative of long term cooling.

  5. big difference is this time there ARE fools with money and the mindset to try n cool it down…and really make life crap if we are going to the cool side naturally.

  6. Re Other posting with no comments allowed: Hope you are realizing that in Fact SG’s attitude to AGW promoters is what is required. They are in fact FABRICATING data, not massaging or biasing. I notice you are taking a much harder line re AGW and its mentors. Thank you. Your site is invaluable. Take care and please do NOT give up.

  7. There’s nothing mysterious about it. Al Gore’s presence went global since he has failed to win the US presidential elections, therefore it is nothing else but the Global Gore Effect at work. He is actually saving the Planet, the greatest single achievement in human history. His Nobel Prize is well deserved.

    I pray you give this chance to many more presidential candidate of yours.

  8. How exactly has the data showing that the oceans are warming been debunked (especially at the 0-2000m level)? http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    And what happens if/when that heat is released to the atmosphere, in the next Pacific Ocean cycle (ENSO and/or PDO)?

    And why, when we have seen similar “pauses” (or even longer, say 1955-1980) in global atmospheric temperatures, is the current pattern called “The Great Pause”?

  9. 31. Gaia is getting older (due to climate change) and it is going through menopause.

    Just kidding. BTW, Didn’t Mann say something about a lag between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature levels? Or something similar? The explanation sounded so unphysical that I didn’t pay much attention.

  10. Next move by ipcc is going to be to say that new research shows world can handle set amount of co2, some band. And un will say it can only be produced by china,India, 3rd world to be fair. Anything above band will cause resumption of warming.

  11. JohnWho:
    FOX is a fence-sitter. I just looked at a story on their website. The AP article said this past June sets records for max temp.
    The article contained the classic saying: “This is what global warming looks like.”
    I then became nauseous and came here.To WUWT.

  12. It may be time to begin differentiation between ‘excuses’ and ‘reasons’. When people make an excuse, they are implying that their actions were in large part correct, but something unforeseen interfered with their expectations. In the case of climate change, excuses for the pause are designed to explain the lack of warming while maintaining the overall correctness of the CAGW theory.

    But many items on the list are ‘reasons’ for the pause that actually undermine the CAGW theory and throw it in the dustbin of history. The most simple and most obviously true reason is number 26: “The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.” There are many other reasons in the list that are tied to number 26, like all the ones referencing some kind of ocean/atmospheric cycle. including ENSO, PDO, AMO and so on. Once the warmests are forced to recognize the magnitude of these natural climate cycles, they must concede that their estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2, tuned in large part to a natural warming cycle, is far too large.

    There are very real reasons for the pause, which may actually be the precursor to a cooling trend, and some or all of them are on the list. The excuses on the list, however, are further from reality than “the dog ate my homework”!

  13. That there are 29 excuses is symptomatic of violations of the principles of entropy minimization and entropy maximization. Models are being based upon more than the available information or less.

  14. A bit off topic, but there’s a story out about how the enviro-left clamored for Pielke’s scalp on 538, since he dared to question the Holy Wisdom imparted from On High.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384057/burn-witch-roger-pielke-jr-out-fivethirtyeight-charles-c-w-cooke

    proving, as if any proof was needed, that any possibility of a “reasonable dialogue” with our opponents is long, long, past. Anyone who tries to engage with the Left in any way, but who commits Heresy, will be professionally destroyed for his sins.

    This is now a fight to the finish, and they are our enemies. They are no longer are countrymen, and should not be thought of as such.

  15. They can think up all manner of factors that can, in their own minds, affect the global temperature for decades at a time, NONE of which are directly represented in their models, yet they retain their blind faith in the ‘correctness’ of their models.
    My suggestion: the ’cause for the pause’ a large river in Egypt… Denial.

  16. Real world facts can not be controled by liars.
    or
    Al Gore was attempting to hide the fail, meant to hit the delete button but only hit the pause button.

  17. “Excuses” is just another name for “failures”.

    If the climate models were accurate in their forecasting ability, there would be no need for “excuses”.

    Until we have no need for “excuses” , there is no reason to believe CAGW.

  18. Nobody has mentioned the obvious: a conspiracy of Sarah Palin, George W. Bush and Karl Rove, using the slightly-modified Dick Cheney Hurricane Machine, last used to create hurricane Katrina.

  19. beng said:
    July 30, 2014 at 7:00 am
    30. It’s Bush’s fault (one).
    31. It’s Bush’s fault (the other).
    ————
    32. It’s Bush’s fault (the next).

    …but gawd – I hope not.

  20. OK, but what happened to:

    ‘It’s hiding between them where the stations are sparse, on the African continent, and over the arctic where it needs to be interpolated’ ?

    I was thinking of Cowtan and Way, who hoped that new inter- and extrapolation methods there, and over the sea might find ‘the missing heat’ …

    BTW Jim Clarke – Good points!

  21. Having spent time on the Guardian website I can add another excuse:
    All the Governments of the world are faking data because of a global conspiracy that has them being paid by big oil.

    And it’s actually very hard to disprove

  22. Almost every weather event is a hopeful sign that co2 is causing climate change followed by the words ‘extreme’, ‘severe’, or ‘super’. When the mid west was in a drought it was an ‘extreme’ drought. An extreme drought was the dust bowl years during the 1930’s. Then CAWG moved on to the melting Arctic. Then it was some tropical hot spot. The melting of Antarctic. No mention of the volcanoes under the ice or the increasing sea ice. They aren’t saying much about California. On the one hand, an el Niño would probably make a warmer winter, then on the other, it’d probably rain in California. What a paradox. So now we have rain, and as far I can see this has been a very cool summer, in the Midwest. The Arctic which was suppose to be ice free last year, isn’t, and it looks like the ice is recovering to former levels. Greenland has disappeared from any conversations. The mystical hot spot is non existent. It worse than we thought, they can’t predict squat. I wonder when the new hockey stick graph will come out. Maybe the world ended in 1999 after all. It seems CAWG is still living in the year 2000.

    This is what passes as science. What I find curious is that CAWG is 100% wrong on everything. That’s almost impossible. I can’t point to anything and say they were right about that. As a scientific body, that should raise questions with skeptics and believers alike. If you look at any of the science from before that was wrong, some of it was right, maybe not exactly, but pretty close or at least useful. How can they claim certainty and be wrong at the same time?

  23. justaskin:

    I write to answer the questions in your post at July 30, 2014 at 7:04 am which says in total

    How exactly has the data showing that the oceans are warming been debunked (especially at the 0-2000m level)? http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    And what happens if/when that heat is released to the atmosphere, in the next Pacific Ocean cycle (ENSO and/or PDO)?

    And why, when we have seen similar “pauses” (or even longer, say 1955-1980) in global atmospheric temperatures, is the current pattern called “The Great Pause”?

    There are links to three debunking’s of “Oceans ate the global warming”. Read them and get back if you don’t understand each of them. There seems little point in writing answers you may not read until you have attempted to read the answers you have been given.

    If heat in the deep ocean were magically “released” the rise in temperature would be too small to discern. If this is not obvious to you then google “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. Again, get back if such elementary science is beyond your comprehension.

    I do not know anybody who calls the cessation of global warming “The Great Pause”. Such people must be warmunists because climate realists say global warming has stopped, and nobody knows if the present situation will cease with cooling or warming.

    Discernible global warming having stopped nearly 18 years ago is important because it falsifies the understandings of climate change incorporated in climate models. Those models say that the cessation of global warming is impossible. The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 6 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  24. The fact that there are so many competing explanations for the hiatus indicates to me that there is no consensus with regard to how climate works.

  25. When the data doesnt math the theory EXACTLY ( always the case ) you are faced with
    choices.

    The choices are.

    1. Call the difference “un important” when its really small you can attribute it to measurement error
    or “uncertainty” which is really a description of your knowledge– not the world

    2. Question the data. Maybe its bad, maybe its biased, collect some more or correct what you have

    3. Question the theory. maybe some part is wrong, maybe some part is missing,

    4. Some combination of 1,2,3

    5. Propose a modification to the theory.

    In short. Data will never match a theory EXACTLY. there is always some residual difference between theory and data. This residual ranges from tiny to huge. When it’s tiny ( how tiny?) the choice people tend to make is the pragmatic one. They declare that the difference is within
    the limits of uncertainty or measurment accuracy and they accept the theory.
    in other cases, where the difference is larger, the options are more varied and there is no real logic that governs your response. Some people will keep the theory and question the data. They might choose to collect more data or re examine the data. Other people may question the theory and look for the parts of it that need correction. Other people may try to throw the whole theory out and rebuild everything from scratch. Some people will combine various options, re examine the data and the theory. Some people may suggest various modifications.

    In short seeing 20 or 30 or 100 suggestions about how to reconcile theory and data is absolutely normal science.

    • Steven Mosher:

      Thanks for sharing. Contrary to your current understanding it is possible for the data to match the theory EXACTLY. The innovation that makes this possible is the formation of abstracted states, that is, states that are abstracted from selected details in a description of the associated system. The “macrostate” of thermodynamics is an example of one of them.

      One forms an abstracted state by placing states that describe the system at a microscopic level of detail in an inclusive disjunction of the form S1 OR S2 OR…OR SN where the elements of the sequence S1, S2,…, SN are states that describe the associated system at a microscopic level of detail. In climatology, for example, S1 could be a specified value for the temporal and spatial average of the global temperature in a specified period in time while S2 could be a different value such that each value lying between specified bounds was an element in the the sequence S1, S2,…, SN.

      An alternative to the formation of an abstracted state is an equivocation such as “the state is approximately S1.” This alternative is, however, unsatisfactory for by rule it is logically illicit to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. Thus, for example, it is logically illicit to draw the conclusion that “the state is S1″ from the premise that “the state is approximately S1.”

      Given the opportunity to choose from between these alternatives, global warming climatologists have usually opted for equivocation not realizing, perhaps, this made the conclusions that they drew from their arguments logically illicit.

  26. Many of these point to “the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than we previously thought”

  27. Anyone know what the physical driver is for coincidence? How to measure its magnitude, sign, and duration?

  28. Steven Mosher says at July 30, 2014 at 8:35 am

    In short seeing 20 or 30 or 100 suggestions about how to reconcile theory and data is absolutely normal science.

    Yes.
    But not settled science.
    How many suggestions are there to reconcile the theory of relativity and data?

    That’s because the theory of relativity isn’t debunked (yet)

  29. When I was at university in the seventies one excellent lecturer told us that the best way to diagnose medical or dental disease, was to look at the signs, listen to the symptoms and then go through the most common conditions that the signs and symptoms could indicate the disease process is to make a diagnosis. He said never start off with the disease that is as rare as rocking horse droppings and progress to the common ailments.
    I have used this process all of my professional life, it works, it is logical and scientific. Contrast this process, with the 29 “excuses” above, where the simple and only logical answer is that the models are wrong!

  30. Mr. Mosher – You are correct about models never matching the data. And you are correct in that there are usually multiple suggestions on how to reconcile theory and data. However, in a situation like the one being discussed, scientists would have an increasing level of uncertainty. Especially since most of the suggestions basically boil down to “natural variation is more important than we thought”. I would have more sympathy if folks said “Well maybe CO2 levels drive about 25% of the changes in climate with natural variation driving the rest.”

  31. #30: It’s Anthony Watts’ fault. He is using up so much energy debunking gorebull warming that the earth has stopped heating. sarc off. There is an element of truth here . I don’t know how Anthony Watts does what he does; I just hope he keeps doing it. That he’s over the target is proven by the amount of flak (particularly recently) he’s taking.

  32. paullinsay says:
    July 30, 2014 at 6:34 am

    “Climate Science ™ is a prime example of Pathological Science as described by Irving Langmuir, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

    Also note the appeals to consensus in the Wiki article:

    “Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not “go away”—long after it was given up on as “false” by the majority of scientists in the field.”
    “The theories and conclusions behind all of these examples are currently rejected or disregarded by the majority of scientists.”

    Such theories and conclusions fail because they don’t hold up to scrutiny under the scientific method. The amount of scientists who agree or disagree is wholly irrelevant. Funny they don’t mention that. This is Wikipedia though.

    :facepalm:

  33. 16

    But, on the flip side, also means that 30-year warming during positive PDO is at least half natural. What goes up must come down.

  34. The beauty of it is… the climate where I live really is changing. And I love it. We all love it. This some of the most beautiful “weather” we’ve had in a coon’s age. And the cool summer(s) actually started late last year. Yet then we’re probably gonna hate it this winter, we certainly did last winter. Brutal. But, shoot, I’ll take highs in the low 80s in July any day, and day after day. And it ain’t just a “weather phenomenon” if the coolness persists and continues. May not be global, but regional is all that matters, baby! To this tax-paying registered voter. Let this weather persist. I’m beggin ya.

    Mod Reply:

    I’m not the PC type myself, but we do live in a different world and some level of decorum is probably a good idea.

    Many slang terms use the term “coon” to mean raccoon. Their black eye-mask and nocturnal habits suggest anthropomorphic parallels, so we get the term “coon” meaning to steal or pilfer, for instance. The word also was used in the 1830s to mean a rustic, a country-bumpkin. In 1840, the coon was the figurehead of the Whig Party. (Where are the Whigs now when we need them?)

    Unfortunately, many of those negative stereotypes were applied to black people, hence the derogatory term “coon,” first used in the 1850s but more commonly heard after 1890. Some etymologists speculate that the term was used because of the raccoon’s dark coloring rather than its real or imagined behavior. Whatever the case, the usage is highly offensive today – heck, it was highly offensive back then. For that reason, “in a coon’s age” makes many people uncomfortable, notwithstanding its innocent origin. You might try “in a dog’s age” or “in donkey’s years” (British), which have the same meaning. Or “in a month of Sundays,” which avoids animals altogether. Better yet, do us all a favor and come up with an original expression. We haven’t had a novel way of saying “for a long time” in a coon’s age.

    Source

    ~mod

  35. It doesn’t matter how many ad hoc auxiliary assumptions you deploy to reconcile your theory with observational data. All that matters is how well each of these assumptions is justified by observational data and whether your theory still remains testable. If your theory says, “We will observe A under condition B, except when conditions C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J also hold,” then that’s fine. We can test that. If we get a bad result refuting it and you add “…and except when condition K holds” then you now have a new theory which can also be tested. When that theory is refuted, then we lather, rinse and repeat. If the assumptions add up to covering all possible observations, such that there are no conditions under which A might be observed, then your theory is not testable but idle speculation.

    But at no case does in these iterations of refutation and ad hoc assumption does your theory “stand.” It gets blown out of the water at every step. You may be on to something big. If you feel you are, then keep adding ad hoc auxiliary assumptions and testing. On the other hand, you may spend the rest of your life iterating to no avail. You may also get to a point where your theory isn’t testable. Good luck!

  36. rishrac says:

    This is what passes as science. What I find curious is that CAWG is 100% wrong on everything. That’s almost impossible. I can’t point to anything and say they were right about that. As a scientific body, that should raise questions with skeptics and believers alike. If you look at any of the science from before that was wrong, some of it was right, maybe not exactly, but pretty close or at least useful. How can they claim certainty and be wrong at the same time?

    Wonder if this is connected with all the climate models being “too warm”.
    Possibly climate is something where there are more possibly “wrongs” than “rights”. Rather than being like a multiple choice test of picking from a small number of choices.

  37. The Pause is proof; PROOF! I tell you that Clean, Renewable Energy is working. The temperatures have stop rising since the massive expansion of photovoltaic and wind turbine electricity production.
    In simplest terms, the wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere and convert it into electricity. This reduction in atmospheric energy is measurable by the lack of temperature rise in the data.
    If we continue on this path of expanding Clean, Renewable Energy, we will no longer need to use fossil fuels about the same time as we enter the next glaciation period.

    /sarc

  38. The Cult of Calamitous Climate is missing the true excuse, the one all paranoids know.
    #1 Mother Nature hates me, mocks me and seeks to destroy my credibility.
    A much more affirming reason than I am a fool who is absolutely certain based on insufficient data.
    Heaven forbid that practitioners of “Climatology” might understand they could be mistaken and there fore wrong.
    Perhaps liners predictions extrapolated from natural cycles, might be mistaken?
    Especially on a water world?

  39. For a theory to be accepted as science it must:

    1) Actually agree with results

    2) If it disagrees with results a reason why in this case the theory failed and a measurement of the purported reason to show that subtracting the reason would bring the result into conformity with the theory. (A volcano for instance)

    3) The accuracy of the results are in doubt… I don’t think they think their own measurements are in doubt since they are fudging them constantly to bring them into as close conformity as they can with the theory.

    This is what science is!!! Isn’t it?

    Saying that it is just natural variation is not a reason. I don’t understand how any scientist can say the results of the last 17 years are not a disproof of the models. They have offered no good reason I have seen that could explain this without seriously compromising the future predictions of the models. I.e. if they admit the NAO/PDO are “the reason” then they should incorporate them into the results of the models or factor them out of the results for all time going back and show this does in fact explain the variation. To do so I believe would halve the sensitivity of the models forcing them to backtrack on the sensitivity number of +3.0C/doubling of CO2 reducing it to +1.5C which would put them at what they say is only 5% probable value for the doubling sensitivity. Also it may have unintended effects on the models accuracy for past results forcing them to admit that other previous statements were wrong as well.

    Obviously then something is wrong with the theory of catastrophic warming because then getting to +3.0C will require getting to 1100parts/million CO2 which is not likely ever therefore the catastrophic effects they envision will never take place making the whole “scare” all for nothing. This is obviously unpalatable as well. However, true scientists are not SCARED of unpalatable things. Physicists are willing to say almost anything if it seems the results show that it is true. Yes, people fought quantum mechanics but nobody questioned the results or the fact something weird was happening that was confounding our ideas of how the world worked. Climate “scientists” seem to just want to ignore inconvenient data which is contrary to the scientific method. Real “scientists” would be chomping at the bit with excitement when they saw that the results weren’t fitting the models. They would be launching into dozens of theories for the “variance” instead of trying to obfuscate the failure.

    I hesitate to use the term “scientists” because they don’t seem to be behaving as scientists and I am not sure what “science” they have actually. From what I’ve deduced the “scientists” don’t want to admit the NAO/PDO is the cause because they have no easy way to incorporate these effect in their “models” because these effects are not underlying physical phenomenon that can be calculated easily. The reason I think this is because they don’t understand how sunlight, deep ocean currents operate and what their values are so they haven’t figured out how to incorporate these phenomenon in a systematic way. They just have no explanation for the NAO/PDO so they prefer to think it will go away. One climate modeler told me this. He said the NAO and PDO would stop happening immediately. Well, clearly they aren’t stopping. Therefore they choose to ignore them. Anything they don’t understand they ignore. It’s not science.

    Saying that it is because the heat was put into the deep ocean is not a reason because they have no explanation of why it went there, why it will stop going there, when it will come out of the deep ocean, therefore it renders all predictions from the models moot and unbelievable since they have no way of saying when the heat would return or how much would return.

    They have to explain the reason for the failure or they have to accept that for all intents and purposes the models are invalid and discard them for the time being until they can be repaired. I am not saying this as an opinion. I am saying this is how science works. If a theory disagrees with results it is disproven unless they can say why it isn’t disproven. They have to admit at least that the probability the theory is correct at this point is very small, probably 5% or less. They can still say in “their opinion” they are going to figure out (future tense) why it failed this time but nobody should accept that as proof. It is a belief, not science.

    I also don’t understand how the models are not disproven since the MWP and LIA have been shown by dozens of accepted scientific peer reviewed papers to exist. How they can simply ignore this. The models do not show an LIA or MWP. Therefore they are wrong. The lack of admission that they are wrong is bizarre to me. I cannot imagine in physics that someone would point out that finding the Higgs particle could be ignored. Theories that don’t show the LIA and MWP must be discarded or amended to include them. Also statements that say the temperatures are the highest in 1000 or 2000 years must be admitted are wrong statements since we don’t know this.

    I would desperately like some scientists to put these facts and statements on paper to validate that science is still working. That at least some scientists still stick to the scientific method and the process of science is still intact with at least some scientists.

  40. #30 Fewer airline flights since 9-11-2001.

    No, not from less CO2, but rather less burning jet fuel blasting into airport based temp stations driving up the NOAA temp averages. However, apparently they have to “adjust the data” to compensate for this factor, artificially causing recent record hot months.
    ;>P

    P.S. here in Michigan its been so cold I have had to fire up the methane to CO2 converters the last few nights (aka furnace), and its JULY!!!!!!!!!!

    Whatever happened to the “Dog Days of Summer” and Al Gore’s promise of hot summers and disappearing winters?

  41. #30 World governments are printing so much money for climate “science” grants that it has sequestered enough carbon dioxide to cause the pause.

  42. Numbers 8) and 25) should come directly after each other

    8) faster trade winds

    25) slower trade winds

  43. For a bit of mid-week fun, here is a top 20 ‘skeptic’ list of all the reasons for the pause (some are deliberately tongue-in-cheek).

    1. A saucepan of cold water cannot be heated from above to make the bottom warm.
    2. It’s the small petrol driven generator (known as a combustion engine) which is attached the electric motors on all eco-cars so they are able to drive 30 miles before plugging in to the mains to ‘fill up’ with coal-fired electricity.
    3. It is not our fault. It never was. It never will be.
    4. Wealthy homes who can afford to have sixteen solar panels bolted to their roof are responsible for reflecting the sun’s heat back in to space.
    5. The world’s population includes far too many tree-hugging gullible humans who are easily hoodwinked by false propaganda – including some fashion designers and pop stars. If we got rid of a few, it might start warming up again.
    6. Highly imaginative phony climate models in the first place amplify the disappointment that it has not actually warmed up to their unprecedented expectations.
    7. Snow has not become a ‘thing of the past’ after-all.
    8. Domestic electricity bills have far-exceeded affordability just to offset colossal renewable subsidies. So we’re ‘switching off’ more. That’s why it’s paused.
    9. Humans easily survive 30 degree C variations between winter and summer. Blame our adaptive wardrobes.
    10. It’s the vast number UK’s disused quarries and pits that are filled with carefully recycled household waste. It is not all shipped to China. These holes in the ground filled with clean plastic bottles and yoghurt cartons are heat-sinks, god dammit.
    11. It’s the increased use of detergent products and domestic hot water to clean all the recycled plastic (put in the correct coloured plastic wheelie-bin) that has caused the warming to stop.
    12. The total amount of atmospheric CO2 is so tiny (when compared to all other atmospheric gasses); it is inconsequential to any catastrophic weather event. That’s why it’s paused.
    13. Anthropogenic emissions account for 3.225% of all the CO2 in the sky. Even if we stopped producing the man-made bit (at enormous expense), it still would have no impact on the 96.775% of CO2 which is naturally occurring.
    14. Despite all the hideous wind turbines spoiling our countryside (and wonderful views from the coast), renewable energy still contributes such a derisory amount to the actual power we need – and, more importantly, has an undetectable effect on carbon dioxide emissions.
    15. All of us non-believing sceptical deniers have poured cold water on the crazy notion that the science is settled.
    16. Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada – it’s their fault it’s not warming up as much as we thought.
    17. It’s WUWT – that caused it.
    18. It’s Wednesday evening and on my second glass of wine.
    19. I can’t think of many other reasons.
    20. Oh – yes ‘it’s called weather – and it was never warming up in the first place’.

  44. Richard,
    I have read the articles posted and understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (heat cannot pass from a warmer body to a colder body without external work being done), and your response does not make sense to me. The articles explain that the deep oceans (greater than 3600 m) respond at different timescales than the upper oceans (less than 2000 m deep), and so the cooling of deeper oceans (which could still be responding to the Little Ice Age) while the upper oceans have warmed over the last century in no way “debunks” anything.

    Regarding “The Great Pause”, it is a term widely used on this website (in fact that’s where I first heard of it), including a recent post here by Lord Monckton.

    I’d also like to know how you picked the year 2020 as a time at which we can determine that projections of AGW are “bunkem.” As anyone can see from the last century of data, there have been “pauses” in the past (e.g., 1940-1975): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png

    and so I don’t think waiting until 2020 will “prove” anything, and there is absolutely no evidence that global warming has “stopped” when one considers increased ocean heat content, melting ice, and sea level rise.

  45. Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming (thanks to The Hockey Schtick).

    How about that they are simply wrong with their exaggerations and assumptions?

  46. @Mosher

    “In short seeing 20 or 30 or 100 suggestions about how to reconcile theory and data is absolutely normal science.”

    What ridiculously commentary… When there is little to no fundamental understanding in a research field, such as economics, psychology and climatology, the establishment in that field doesn’t get to claim 95% certainty that most of the warming since 1950 was caused by factor X, and other such assertions of confidence. That’s what causes the field to be classified as ‘junk science’, not normative science. You are correct in one sense: junk science is sadly common in most poorly understood research fields.

  47. justaskin:

    All your original questions were answered in my original post at July 30, 2014 at 8:27 am. I provide this link to help you find it so you can try to read it this time.

    At July 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm you respond to my original post by asking

    I’d also like to know how you picked the year 2020 as a time at which we can determine that projections of AGW are “bunkem.”

    Year 2020 was not “picked” by me. As I explained with a link, a citation, a quotation, and an explanation it was “picked” by the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I apologise for my original post using the acronym IPCC without explanation: I had assumed you knew sufficient about the subject for you to know what IPCC means.

    Anyway, you can use the link I have provided to return to my post so you can try to read it this time.

    Richard

  48. Rhoda R says at July 30, 2014 at 9:57 am

    30. James Hansen retired.

    It would be horrible, terrible, disgusting if that was true.

    But it does fit the available evidence.

  49. Best thing about the pause is watching half the warmists deny it and the other half explaining the cause of it. They can’t both be right.

  50. David Schofield says:
    July 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm
    Best thing about the pause is watching half the warmists deny it and the other half explaining the cause of it. They can’t both be right.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Dave – this is what you call your new, improved “settled science”…apparently it can simultaneously settle into any number of latrines. This saves the new-age climatologist from having to resolve contradictions, leaving more time for filling out grant applications.

  51. How about… ”Coz, we haven’t got a clue.”

    With apologies to Dr. Spencer.

    Eamon.

  52. A pause it may be – but reason number one for the “18 years” is the choice of a single satellite data set which does not directly measure surface temperature.

    As The Good Lord M posted recently, the pause started around 2001/2 when you look at the 5 main data sets together.

  53. Richard,
    I respectfully read your first post, and I know what the IPCC is. You are interpreting the IPCC report too literally, in my opinion. The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models. As the historical temperature record shows (1880 to present), temperatures have risen in a staircase pattern, and climate scientists readily admit the limitations of the models in predicting precisely when the “steps” will occur, thus it is no surprise that they did not predict the current “pause.”

    A statistician named George Box once said, “All models are wrong, some are useful.” Pointing out all the ways that AOGCMs may be wrong does not convince me they are not useful. And in order to scientifically “debunk a myth,” one needs to come up with an alternative explanation that makes more sense. The AGW “theory” provides a completely coherent explanation of the temperature rise (surface and ocean), sea level rise, and ice melting we have seen over the last century.

  54. @justaskin

    “You are interpreting the IPCC report too literally, in my opinion. The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models.”

    The IPCC reports clearly show that model predictions tightly track interdecadal variability, yet diverge significantly as soon as they move from hind-cast to forecast. The greater the interdecadal variability, the less certain one can be of climate models to predict the future over any time scale. This is because what change is caused by GHG’s and what change is caused by variability, becomes more difficult to distinguish. The longer the divergence, the less confident one can be in such models.

  55. justaskin says:
    July 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models. As the historical temperature record shows (1880 to present), temperatures have risen in a staircase pattern, and climate scientists readily admit the limitations of the models in predicting precisely when the “steps” will occur, thus it is no surprise that they did not predict the current “pause.”

    Then why will another 18 months of flat temperatures take them below the IPCC’s 95% -onfidence envelope?

  56. 45. The unnnnnnnnprecedennnnnnnted massive Arctic waves of 2012 whipped up sea spray that had a mister effect, which air conditioned the world.

  57. David Schofield says:
    July 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm
    Best thing about the pause is watching half the warmists deny it and the other half explaining the cause of it. They can’t both be right.

    Have you discussed this with Schrodinger? ☺

  58. Jim Clarke says:
    July 30, 2014 at 7:33 am
    It may be time to begin differentiation between ‘excuses’ and ‘reasons’. When people make an excuse, they are implying that their actions were in large part correct, but something unforeseen interfered with their expectations. In the case of climate change, excuses for the pause are designed to explain the lack of warming while maintaining the overall correctness of the CAGW theory.

    But many items on the list are ‘reasons’ for the pause that actually undermine the CAGW theory and throw it in the dustbin of history.

    Jim, I wholeheartedly agree. We need to note that the “excuses” are pathetic, and that the “reasons” are worthy of further examination and dissemination.

    Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
    July 30, 2014 at 12:12 pm
    How come “The sky is falling” memo from NASA http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/ hasn’t made it? Pity, it’s fun reading for so many reasons. An update would be nice

    Jaakko, I see this as one of the reasons the “CAGW due to increasing atmospheric CO2″ theory is wrong. I particularly liked that linked page because in it NASA is actually admitting both that it does not fully understand how the solar cycle effects Earth’s atmosphere, and that CO2 can actually cool the upper atmosphere.

    NASA says:
    “The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.”
    and:
    “When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth’s atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.”

    I think solar EUV variation partially explains how changes in the solar cycle can affect the Earth’s climate even though TSI changes very little. A simplified possible mechanism:

    Heat input from the sun consistently warms the tropical oceans, regardless of the solar activity level. During a time of increased solar activity, TSI is only slightly increased, but EUV is greatly increased, as is the solar wind. Increased EUV warms the upper atmosphere world wide, while the increased solar wind warms the upper polar atmosphere and reduces cloud production in temperate zones.
    Higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere cannot heat the ocean directly. However, the temperature of the upper atmosphere does affect the lower atmosphere’s temperature at night, and thus the ocean’s rate of radiated heat loss. In the tropics heat input from the sun dominates the ocean temperature. Heat loss rates dominate ocean temperature at the poles. A lower heat loss rate, especially at the poles, during periods of high solar activity means less cooling of polar waters, resulting in a warming ocean overall. This affects PDO, ENSO, Etc. If high solar activity persists, a global warm period such as the MWP results, not from increased TSI, but from lowered rates of cooling of polar oceans. A warmer ocean eventually means less polar sea ice. A warmer ocean also means more water vapor in the atmosphere, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and warmer air temps overall, but especially at the poles and on winter nights everywhere.
    When solar activity drops, solar EUV radiation and the solar wind are reduced. The thermosphere temperature cools rapidly, especially at the poles. Higher atmospheric CO2 due to outgassing by the warm oceans contribute to thermosphere cooling. Polar air masses cool rapidly. As sea ice increases, reduced heat given off by exposed sea water allows polar air to cool even more. (Polar waters continue to cool, though rate of cooling is reduced by increased ice cover.) Cold polar air spilling into temperate zones produces suddenly colder winters. Temperatures drop first during winter, especially at night, as a colder upper atmosphere allows greater cooling of the lower atmosphere whenever the sun is not shining. Reduced solar wind also allows greater cloud production in temperate zones, resulting in cool wet summers. If solar activity remains low, a cold period ensues, such as the LIA. Again, reduced solar activity results in a cool period, not through reduced TSI, but via a colder upper atmosphere allowing greater cooling whenever and wherever the sun is not shining, coupled with increased cloudiness in temperate zones.

    SR

  59. Yesterday it was a 13 year pause. Today it’s 18 years. Wow, can’t you guys make up your mind? Or do you have a hard time counting on both your fingers and your toes?

  60. cesium62,

    It was über-Warmist Phil Jones [of Climategate infamy] who designated 1997 as the official start year. Jones said we would need 15 years of no warming from 1997 to be able to say with statistical certainty that global warming has stopped. Jones said that in 1999.

    Well guess what? Global warming has been stopped for 17+ years now.

    Deal with it.

  61. You left a few excuses off the list:
    * “You aren’t actually looking at global surface temperatures; try using a dataset other than RSS that looks at Arctic temperatures.”
    * “Just because you think that CO2 has 0 effect on climate doesn’t mean that we think CO2 is the only thing that can possibly affect climate.”
    * “Really? You really think that cherry picking an abnormally hot year as the start of your ‘pause’ is the best statistical methodology you can use?”

  62. Just today I posted this over on Tallblokes site;
    In the NH summer of 2000 I spent several months working with an Australian Astro-meteorologist Jennifer Lawson author of a book “Countdown to Cataclysm, Violent Weather Predictions 2000 – 2001″. ISBN 1-56718-414-6

    We looked at the lunar phases and declinational angles in regard to ENSO indices, to see which had the most pronounced effects, what we found was about the same as noted above in levels of el nino activity, mostly neutral at minimum declination angles, more enhanced but shorter spikier, activity associated with drought periods in Australia when the lunar declination was about the same as the apparent solar declination 22 degrees to 24 degrees. With the periods of most active weather, most rapid meridional flow surges, at the time of year when the solar and lunar declination at culmination were acting in tandem.

    This was seen in tornado production and hurricane numbers and intensity increases, most enhanced for tornadoes (three days either side, centered) when there was a concurrent outer planetary heliocentric conjunction. And due to ion charging effects of the outer planetary conjunctions a decrease in Hurricane activity intensity the week before a conjunction and a rapid reactivation about 5 to 7 days after the outer planet heliocentric conjunction.

    There was seen in the historical data increases in drought conditions in Australia, and longer lived EL Nino effects at lunar maximum declination of around 27 to 28 degrees, the symotainious Heliocentric conjunctions of Neptune with Uranus in the NH summer months in 1993 and the slow passing speeds kept them close together through the lunar declination maximum angle culmination in 2005, before it started to decrease.

    I think it was the increased summer NH magnetically driven (as a result of most of the outer planets were being passed by the earth in the NH summers) solar wind ion scavenging of the upper troposphere through the 1982 to 1998 period that let more of the solar output reach the seas to effect the GW that we saw for that period, and the massive hurricane outbreak in 2005 was the result of the lunar declination going past peak, as Neptune and Uranus was shifting into the months of August/September, so the result was an outpouring of the extra heat in the oceans as the ion content of the tropical troposphere was decreasing from its high concentration of cat+ ions into the rest of the atmospheric tidal bulges, with outpouring of the polar air masses (carrying the excess -ions) that made the discharge of the earth’s global circuit through the precipitation of the charge carrying water vapor/clouds.

    The great maximum EL NINO in IIRC 1998 was given additional power and duration by the heliocentric conjunction of earth with Mars on the 17th of March 1997, Jupiter with Uranus on the 27th of March, (setting up the spring tornadoes), then Earth with Neptune on the 21st of July, Uranus on the 29th of July, Earth with Jupiter on the 9th of August, then a resumption of hurricane activity until the earth Saturn helio-conjunction 10th of October 1997. Then in 1998 the well started global oscillation in the atmosphere got another boost with the heliocentric conjunctions of earth with Neptune on 23rd of July, Uranus on the 3rd of August, Jupiter on the 16th of September, and Saturn on the 23rd of October 1998.

    After these big surges in global circulation it has calmed down consistently, but with the major storms introduced from the outer planetary conjunctions moving into the fall and winter months coinciding with the large snow storms in the NE USA, Europe, China, and Mongolia of late, and are directly responsible for the “global pause” the same as they were responsible for the “global warming” and as they continue to spread throughout the year we will see “normal weather across most of the globe with low levels of tornadoes and Hurricanes, until the lunar declination increases up close to 21-22 degrees at culmination, then the tornado activity will resume.

    I had not been aware of the East/West trends in the trades until now and I will watch it with abated breath, thanks for your comments.
    Richard Holle

  63. dbstealy: please provide a specific reference that shows Jones designating 1997 as the official start year and 15 years of no warming from 1997 as showing with statistical certainty that global warming has stopped. Repeating memes that you cannot substantiate may convince denialists. But we alarmists actually want to see the evidence.

  64. justaskin:

    I admit to some frustration at your posts addressed to me which are disingenuous, obtuse and misleading.

    Your most recent post is at July 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm and begins saying

    Richard,
    I respectfully read your first post, and I know what the IPCC is. You are interpreting the IPCC report too literally, in my opinion. The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models. As the historical temperature record shows (1880 to present), temperatures have risen in a staircase pattern, and climate scientists readily admit the limitations of the models in predicting precisely when the “steps” will occur, thus it is no surprise that they did not predict the current “pause.”

    NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! How dare you?!
    I am NOT “interpreting the IPCC report”. In my post at July 30, 2014 at 8:27 am which is here I cited, referenced, linked to, and quoted the IPCC AR5 explanation of “committed warming”.

    The IPCC predicted the “committed warming” which exists because of CO2 emissions made in the past, and said

    The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    That is a quotation of the IPCC AR5: it is NOT my “interpretation”.

    Furthermore, you make an untrue post hoc interpretation which is a poor excuse for failure when you write

    temperatures have risen in a staircase pattern, and climate scientists readily admit the limitations of the models in predicting precisely when the “steps” will occur

    The models do NOT predict and do NOT project temperatures rising in a “staircase pattern”: the models each indicates temperature wandering up. What some so-called scientists “admit” does not alter the fact that the models predict and project that the the “staircase pattern” will not exist.

    Indeed, that is why the models failed to predict that global warming would stop as it did nearly 18 years ago. So, the models are wrong and, therefore, they cannot provide a reliable indication of whether the existing plateau of global temperature will end with cooling or warming.

    To conclude, I repeat what I wrote to you in my post I have linked from this post.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  65. ben d: But that’s the whole point Ben. The “pause” is a made up denialist feature. It’s generated from data that does not cover the entire earth. It’s generated by cherry picking data. It only looks at surface temperatures and ignores ocean temperature. The fact that the 2013 Arctic Sea Ice September minimum was higher than the 2012 September minimum doesn’t indicate that global warming has paused for a year.

    The fact that denialists can’t seem to agree on the length of “the pause” from one day to the next lends support to the fact that “the pause” is not a real feature.

  66. Richard: By your argument, people should ignore hurricane warnings because the models not only disagree with each other, but they show the hurricane following paths that aren’t exactly the path that the actual hurricane ended up taking.

  67. What could be (has been?) the explanation of the pause, or rather the recess, that took place between the early 40’s and the mid 70’s, quite similar to the current one?

  68. cesium62:

    Your post at July 31, 2014 at 1:14 am says in total

    Richard: By your argument, people should ignore hurricane warnings because the models not only disagree with each other, but they show the hurricane following paths that aren’t exactly the path that the actual hurricane ended up taking.

    I made no “argument”.
    My post at July 31, 2014 at 1:03 am explained a basic principle of the scientific method and it application to consideration of the AGW-hypothesis.

    So, I am genuinely fascinated to know how you can twist what I wrote to indicate that “people should ignore hurricane warnings”. Please demonstrate that you can actually make this distortion which you claim you can: I want the laugh.

    Richard

  69. “in donkey’s years”

    Oh dear. beware of that one.

    Firstly because it used to be donkeys’ EARS and secondly because donkeys is a derogatory term applied by Jersey islanders to Guernsey inhabitants, who wear it as a badge of pride saying its jealousy because they are ‘hung like donkeys’

    Political correctness, like Global warming is the cause of everything and found everywhere.

    You cant even call a spade, a spade..

    Oh what a gay day!

  70. It’s a good one this. A new excuse for the pause:

    ☺You make a hypothesis (CO2 is the dominant cause of warming in the latter half of the 20thC)
    ☻You predict what would happen if that hypothesis was correct (Models that say temperature rises smoothly).
    ☺You watch what happens (the world doesn’t warm as predicted)
    ☻You realise that your hypothesis has never been correct historically (the world has never warmed smoothly as the models predict

    Therefore – the predictive power of the hypothesis is unchanged by observation!

    Of course, the hypothesis is still worthless when it comes to reflecting reality but… it is still useful because it will be just as unrealistic in the future – after a century or two – as it is now.

    Brilliant. It is good to keep things light-hearted.

  71. Cesium 350:

    By your argument, people should ignore hurricane warnings because the models not only disagree with each other, but they show the hurricane following paths that aren’t exactly the path that the actual hurricane ended up taking.

    Ah! The binary logic of the true warmist! The postmodern approach to Truth.

    If you can’t say for sure that anything is absolutely True, then all things are equally lies! And any lie is as good as any other!

    Hurricane warnings are better than random in their correlation with perceived reality.

    AGW predictions are, by and large, not.

    Statistics is the mathematics of 50 shades of grey.

    Argument in black and white terms is simply… Um… Racist?

  72. justaskin says:

    July 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm
    ” And in order to scientifically “debunk a myth,” one needs to come up with an alternative explanation that makes more sense.”

    But in the meantime, we must accept the myth as fact and beyond question?????

    Eamon.

  73. cesium62 says:

    July 31, 2014 at 1:11 am
    ”The fact that denialists can’t seem to agree on the length of “the pause” from one day to the next lends support to the fact that “the pause” is not a real feature.”

    So what does it tell us about the Alarmists who can’t agree on an explanation/ reason/ excuse, for this ”imagined” Pause?
    Whatever it’s duration, it’s a reality acknowledged even by the Alarmists. No denying it.

    Eamon.

  74. The pattern of bizarre excuses is EXACTLY the pattern of behavior used by pathological LIARS. We have all had to deal with them-a lie, to support a lie, to support a lie. The excuses become crazier and crazier – all to hide the truth that they lied from pretty well the beginning. Their whole case is based on trust. Once you spot a single lie, you realize the whole lot is a load of rubbish and you have been scammed. Some of these deceivers, eg J. Edgar Hoover die before the deception is uncovered. In the case of the “desired” outcome of the grand deception, no one will challenge them if they succeed. “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”-Adolf Hitler . Thus, it is OUR duty to expose the grand fraud. We must do all we can to expose the climate lies which are just a means to an end-the end of our society.

  75. cesium62 says:

    dbstealy: please provide a specific reference that shows Jones designating 1997 as the official start year and 15 years of no warming from 1997… &blah, blah, etc.

    Why should I have to do your homework for you?

    Maybe you are not capable of doing a simple search. In that case, see here and here. There’s more. Feel free to do your own search.

    Now that you have been educated, I trust you will do the honorable thing and acknowledge that 1997 was the year designated by alarmist Phil Jones as the baseline year for determining if global warming has stopped.

  76. Steve Reddish says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:51 pm

    Willis, in re that post of mine, I imagine you asking “How does this hypothesis explain that warming at the end of the LIA precedes the increase of solar activity?”

    By the mechanism of tropical ocean cloud production varying in proportion with water temperature, just as you advocate. Tropical ocean temperatures would have slowly dropped during the LIA (due to heat loss at the poles), eventually reducing cloud production. Less tropical cloud cover would then allow more solar radiation (TSI only slightly less than during the MWP) to reach the surface, warming tropical waters, which are then either circulated to the North Atlantic, or in the Pacific, produce an increase in El Ninos.
    While solar activity remains low world temps would seesaw around a low temperature limit. During extended periods of high solar activity world temps would seesaw around a high temperature limit. Both limits are determined by cloud production in the tropics, just as you propose.

    The sun’s activity level (but, not via TSI changes) determines which limit world temps are approaching at any given time, just as many have proposed. The enormous heat content of the world ocean produces a large lag, sufficient to mask solar variation during individual solar cycles. Only changes in solar activity persisting for multiple solar cycles would change ocean temps, via EVU and solar wind affecting polar air temperatures.
    After an extended warming trend, NH winters are additionally tempered by heat escaping from warmer Arctic waters uncovered by sea ice. A downturn in solar activity would affect NH winter temperatures more directly as Arctic sea ice extent increased. Thus the lag between the recent reduction in solar activity and current colder winters.

    PS: I am not presenting data since every element of this mechanism is already in the common domain. I am merely suggesting how the elements interplay to produce observed climate and weather. I agree that minor TSI changes are insufficient to cause warm or cold periods, suggesting instead upper atmosphere temperature changes which are observed to correlate with changes in solar activity are sufficient, by changing the rate of cooling of the lower atmosphere at night, and thus changing the rate of cooling of ocean waters at the polar ends of the oceanic circulation cycle where nights are extended during winter.

    SR

  77. So as a scientist we make a hypothesis. We collect data a verify the validity of the hypothesis.

    So the hypothesis is that as CO2 goes up, temperature rises. 18 years, CO2 has risen and temperature has not. Hypothesis is proven wrong. Seems simple.

    Should we work on lowering pollution? Certainly. Who wants to breath that crap? But the scientists need to go ahead and admit the hypothesis was wrong. It is far past the obvious time to do so.

    • hanson807:

      The hypothesis that “as CO2 goes up, temperature rises” sounds to you and to many others as though it is falsifiable but it is not. A hypothesis is falsified if and only if the observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of the events do not match the predicted relative frequencies. For your hypothesis, there are no events or relative frequencies.

  78. logiclogiclogic says:
    July 30, 2014 at 10:27 am
    +++++++++++++
    Well stated!!! Now let’s see if Mosher can understand this Logic!

  79. The argument that logiclogiclogic makes in his July 30 at 10:27 am comment is an equivocation on the polysemic term “science.” By rule, one may not logically draw a conclusion from an equivocation.

  80. Every argument that Terry Oldberg ever makes is balderdash. By rule, one may not logically draw a conclusion from words randomly thrown together.

  81. It’s definitely all the fault of expensive motor cars. 17. AMOC. In my world AMOC is the Aston Martin Owners Club. Don’t think I’ve quite got the hang of this.

  82. I always enjoy reading these sort of lists, and of course the resulting WUWT comment thread. There is an amusing running tally (I forget where exactly ATM) of all the world’s ills which have at some point been blamed on ‘Man-made Global Warming’ – it’s a very long list!

    If, as a layman, I was to venture a suggestion for an additon to the above list it would be to do with the 11% increase in planetary greening observed over the satellite record (which is due to CO2 fertilisation).

    I’m sure that there are many other factors which are in-play (some of which are on the list), but I reckon the greening of the planet is quite a powerful negative feedback which ‘could’ be attenuating ‘some’ of any warming which ‘might’ otherwise have taken place.

    I suppose the reason this one isn’t on the list is either:-

    1. Because I’m talking through my hat;

    or 2. Because The Team cannot suggest that CO2 ever does any good – after all, it is The Evil Gas Of Doom! (/sarc.)

  83. 30 (the right one): There may now be a decline, but there is, or was, no pause. The early numbers were boiled down, the later ones cooked up to create the apparent warming. By 1999, however, making the “adjustments” became both riskier and more difficult, so the numbers became more consistent with measurement – hence the apparent pause.

  84. richardscourtney (Aug. 1 at 2:05 am):

    You make a pair of assertions but these assertions do not rise to the level of an argument. If you’d like to make an argument, please present it for critical review. What are the premises to this argument, what is the conclusion from it, why are the premises true and by what logical principle does the conclusion follow from these premises?

  85. Terry Oldberg:

    re your post at August 1, 2014 at 9:59 am.

    In my post at August 1, 2014 at 2:05 am I paraphrased your post at July 31, 2014 at 9:39 pm. If you think my comment was flawed then your post was, too. Indeed, that was my point: you only post gobbledeygook. At least this time you did not claim you have a method to obtain “information from the future”.

    Thankyou for offering me this opportunity to iterate my warning for ‘newbies’ reading this thread who may be reading your twaddle for the first time.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      I gather from your silence that you have no argument to make in reference to the assertions that you make your post of Aug. 1 at 2:05 am. Do you have an argument to make in reference to the assertions that you make in your post of Aug. 1 at 2:37 pm?

  86. Friends:

    If any of you require further warning about the irrational rubbish posted by Oldberg, I draw your attention to his response to my post at August 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm being to claim I was”silent”.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      I gather from your continuing silence in response to my requests that your appeals be framed as arguments that you are unwilling or unable to do so. Instead, you intend to continue to use this blog to make emotional appeals. While this may work for you, it does not work for the purposes of the scientific community. Were posts in this blog subjected to the ordinary standards of the peer-review system, your personal attacks would not be published here for they would be recognized as illogical, irrelevant and defamatory.

Comments are closed.