Climate researchers have published a new paper this week in the journal Nature Climate Change that acknowledges there has been a global warming slowdown from 2000-2014. Their research shows a hiatus did indeed occur and continued into the 21st century, contradicting another study last June that said the hiatus was just an artifact that “vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.” This is not the first time activists have tried to hide the hiatus by using dodgy methods. –Thomas Richard, The Examiner, 24 February 2016
…
An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected. Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”
…
Ups and downs
The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.
That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.
Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14.
Fyfe says that the advantage of this approach is that it takes account of events that affect decadal temperature trends. For instance, researchers have found that climate models underestimated the cooling effect of volcanic eruption and overestimated the heating from solar radiation at the beginning of the twenty-first century4. Other researchers are investigating variability in the Pacific Ocean, including a measure of sea surface temperatures known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)5. All these things can affect the climate, and mask the longer-term warming trend.
Bumps and wiggles
Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.
–Jeff Tollefson, Nature, 24 February 2016
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why is that the media doesn’t pick this up? (yes, sarcastic oxymoronic question)
I find it interesting that the caveat/excuse/party line is always given and cannot just refute the scam: “Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.”
Slowdown implies trend continues.
Hiatus implies trend continues.
Pause implies trend continues.
A market consolidates. There is no implication of future movement up or down; because nobody knows. That is how investment consultants talk, they only use loaded words if they are selling you an idea. The market has ‘topped’ if they want you to sell. The market has ‘paused’ if they want you to buy.
The trend is your friend, this trend is thousands of years old, so i would still bet that the trend ultimately continues, but the warmists are picking the tag words and even we digest them. This language is being hand fed to us and we are eating it up.
To continue the analogy; if I showed you a 5 minute wheat chart and told you you have to buy, it is going to $40.00/bushel in 100 years, would you do it? ‘Your children’s future depends on it.”
That is how we are making government policy, using your money.
Using 30 years of data on 20,000 cycles is beyond stupid.
“20,000 year cycles”
Did you know that 87% of statistics on the internet are made up…including this one.
Winnipeg Boy – Not made up at all.
From the Google: How long is an interglacial period?
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth’s climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate.
Don’t you mean 97%?
It is always 97%.
Menicholas
No.
Not ‘always 97%’ . . .
100% the science is settled.
Always. We are told.
Auto – with, Mods, please note, a teaspoon or twelve of sarcasm.
Yeah – outright Sarcasm.
So there!
It’s not the global warming theory that’s of concern; it’s the lack of global warming reality, that isn’t being noticed.
g
“If it bleeds, it leads”…still hasn’t changed in the media since I was writing for the local rag back in the 80s. Then, it was: try to fill up the spaces between the car dealership ads. Now, its clickbait, usually an unpaid intern (barely) re-writing a press release from Greenpeace or the WWF.
Well the problem I have with my local NEWS (talk) radio station, is that they have about three news items each day, max.
They play about 8 ads for rubbish, then they tell their three news stories; ‘ Trump sweeps to a major win in Nevada. ‘ (do they have 8 congressional districts); ‘ Hillary (prenamed for Sir Edmund ) triumphs big in Nevada, wins all three coin tosses.’ ‘ Obummer to close Gitmo; bring mohammedan pals to the USA. ‘ Then a break for 8 more ads of rubbish.
I like the tax lawyer ads. ‘ If you haven’t filed a tax return in years, we can get it settled for you for pennies on the dollar. Don’t have the money to pay the taxes, we can get it cut to ribbons ‘ ( How do the Lawyer get paid; and by whom; mebbe by the IRS ? )
Those three news stories will be rebroadcast every half hour, interspersed with the 8 ads. the radio station staff read the ads, and allegedly they use the product or service. How much are they paid to say they use the service ?
Total bunch of lying scam artists.
g
The global warming hiatus hiatus has ended.
Does it mean that the temperature is warmer now, than it was before it was as warm as it is now?
There’s always a higher altitude at the top of the hill.
G
The infamous Chris Mooney has: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/24/top-scientists-insist-global-warming-really-did-slow-down-in-the-2000s/
Looks like the EPA is moving on the telling depressed small towns and cities how they can achieve Smart economic growth. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/small_town_econ_dev_tool_010516.pdf
Transportation for one. Just ask for more federal money, I guess, like they do.
‘Pointless government regulation had nothing to do with it…’
Thanks for the link – that document is hilarious 🙂
(for me – not living in the United States and not paying a cent for it.)
” researchers have found that climate models underestimated the cooling effect of volcanic eruption and overestimated the heating from solar radiation at the beginning of the twenty-first century4. Other researchers are investigating variability in the Pacific Ocean”
Still floundering around looking for excuses. When will they get their thick heads around the reality that CO2 radiative functions need to be knocked back at least 50% in the models? When will they graduate from their high school conception of CO2 physics?
When will they get their thick heads around the fact that radiative forcing is no good. The Earth’s atmosphere isn’t an onion, unlike the extremely strange planet their models are made for. If you want to know what happens on Earth, you need to understand that convection makes the atmosphere and oceans work.
Well if they stuck to high school physics of CO2 they’d do a lot better. The real “basic laws of physics” CO2 forcing is about 50% or what they are currently using, which is pretty much doubled by supposed positive feedbacks which are nothing but gestimated “parameters”.
What do you mean 50% Mike? Since when did a trace amount of CO2 and it’s properties control the planets temperature and overpower all other gases?
UV, Xrays and other frequencies effect hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and argon in a much greater way in variability as to swamp CO2.
CO2 has no influence over the planets current composition of gases, it plays no role in earths temperature variability, CO2 is not even 1% of earths atmosphere yet it is touted as having supernatural properties, show me the experimental results that show adding 1% CO2 to a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere can change the natural variability of temperature in that atmosphere, show me the results that prove the artifcial atmosphere will not cool or warm naturally…
Mike: “Well if they stuck to high school physics of CO2 they’d do a lot better.”
There are PhDs aplenty who believe that CO2, on net, cools the planet rather than warms it. Using only HS physics (and thermodynamics) many of them easily show that CO2 does not do what the “team” claims it does. But it will be a long, long time before the CO2 delusion is over and we can get back to reality. (the “team” deals in some sort of mythical world of make believe)
As a side note; notice that the whole CAGW scare is based on only the anthropogenic CO2 released. That would be, on a yearly basis, approximately 4% of the trace gas in the atmosphere that is itself only 0.04% (400 parts per million). If CO2 were really the “climate control knob” then CO2 would have to be a “magic molecule” indeed.
~ Mark
How shocking that this group of climate deniers has its paper published in a legitimate journal! What will become of climate science when NOAA is challenged? Did no one read the memo? The science is settled.
This paper’s coauthors include Michael E Mann and Benjamin D Santer who I doubt would self-identify as “deniers”.
I wonder if Mann will now sue. I wonder if the “slowdown” is acceptable to him since it still implies warming. I wonder how he feels about the lead author talking about the paper and data in this way.
Gavin is not impressed…
‘…Gavin Schmidt, a climate activist and a director at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said it’s a “tired discussion and nothing more than academic bickering.” He adds, “A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that”…’
I love the last episode being lifted from “Seinfeld” (possibly very unintentionally), considering that GISS has an office literally a few doors away from the restaurant façade used to represent the Monk’s coffeshop frequented on the show.
So Karl et al is wrong even after altering buoy’s to match ship cooling water intakes? I would think the real probem is reconciling Karl with RSS and UAH.
The real problem is all these folks are studiously neglecting systematic measurement error. The surface temperature record isn’t known to better than ±0.5 C, and more likely no better than ±1 C.
Even RSS and UAH are probably not more accurate than ±0.3 C.
All of global warming studies are like arguments among theologians. None of them know what they’re talking about.
Pat Frank:
Yes! Well said! Hear, hear!
Richard
Exactly!
One gets the impression that the entire field of “climate science” is based on data processing – analysis artifacts and gross underestimation of systematic errors.
“Climate science” not only strains credibility but tosses it in the blender and hits the purée button.
But statistics can “fix” this. The old precision vs accuracy thing again.
Finally. What justifies reporting all these global temperature measurements to 3 decimal places? I haven’t been able to find at NASA nor at NOAA what is the uncertainty in their temperature measurements, but I suspect that it is a lot closer to +/-1 degree C than it is to +/-0.001 degree C. That means that all these papers and headlines about this month or year being warmer that last year are just a bunch of BS. What they should be saying is no significant change.
PiperPaul, I’ve yet to encounter the climate modeler that understands or respects the distinction between precision and accuracy; and I’ve encountered plenty. They dismiss it with contempt.
I’ve read most of the surface temperature papers, too. They all assume all error is random. Earlier papers don’t mention systematic error. John Kennedy’s (UKMet) 2014 review mentions it, but then assumes that it is all random and averages away. I’ve exchanged emails with John. He doesn’t budge.
All of Climatology has become “Global Warming Studies” suitable for inclusion in a Humanities Cultural Studies Curriculum. The entire field lives off false precision.
I like Richard Lindzen’s remark that it’s just a “statistical residue”.
@ur momisugly Dick Burkel February 24, 2016 at 1:16 pm.
Allow me to refer you to my “Climate Sanity: GISTEMP’s Overconfidence Intervals”.
http://www.elcore.net/ClimateSanity/GISTEMPsOverconfidenceIntervals.html
Karl says 0.116°C/decade and Fyfe says 0.113°C/decade for 2000-2014. This is not a Hiatus in the warming. The difference is because the earlier times were warming even faster according to Fyfe.
Let’s see…
*it was warming 0.113-116C/decade with “low emissions” and high aerosol cooling from 1950-1972 (but how many nuclear bombs and tests occurring?)
*then we banned aerosols and it warmed at .017C from 1972-2001 with lessening aerosols and increasing emissions
*then with massive emissions and no “cooling eruptions or aerosols” from 2001-2014 back to .0113-0.116C/decade?
That certainly is a slow down after an increase. And human emissions are supposed to be causing increasing warming, not slowing it down…which is why the models didn’t anticipate it.
Now, either way, if the globe was warming at 0.113-0.116C/decade in 1950 and was just beginning to reflect human influence and is warming today at 0.113-0.116C/decade with 65 years of increasing human influence non stop since then, the AGW theory has a problem. Either some unknown cooling mechanism exists that is overwhelming the “scientifically expected/calculated” effects of increased atmospheric CO2, OR there has been a miscalculation/false expectation regarding the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2…or maybe both.
Of course the Global Warming Hiatus is real.
If it wasn’t, the UK’s prestigious University of Exeter would have no need to hire a Research Fellow at £41k pa (~$60k) plus generous holiday allowances plus pension to research it:
https://jobs.exeter.ac.uk/hrpr_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=694759EE7x&WVID=3817591jNg&LANG=USA
The closing date is a month away – so send in your cv.
Of further interest in the Job Description:
fudge squared
Check out the list of authors. It includes one Michael E (Piltdown) Mann. Has he abandoned ‘The Cause’, or is he up to something devious yet again?
” … or is he up to something devious yet again?”
He only does devious.
Isn’t it obvious? There are a whole bunch of nervous rent seekers looking down under and muttering to themselves, “Uh oh. Maybe we should cool the whole ‘we’ve got this all figured out’ meme”.
A couple days ago I just finished reading how January 2016 was the hottest EVER! The disconnect just amazes me. Meanwhile, I wonder if Lake Superior is getting ready to freeze over again.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/02/17/january_2016_was_the_hottest_january_on_record.html
Lake Superior won’t freeze this year, the cooling started too late in the season, due to the El Nino impact. But the water is not unusually warm in Lakes Superior or Michigan, and I suspect that we’ll have another moderate summer in the Upper Great Lakes, and the potential for a fast cool-down next November and December.
So, Climate Central took the opportunity to go “wall to wall” reporting dramatic sea level rise. It was picked up everywhere! New York City and Washington, DC were again under water. Oh, the humanity.
Tell us, the unwashed how the acceleration happened during the “pause”? Maybe, could it be that, sea levels are not correlated to CO2?
Oh my!
‘Oh, the humanity.’ Nice touch. 😉
That quote conjures up images of CAGW going down like the Hindenburg. How ironic that GW would go down in flames, all the while proponents shrieking “Oh the humanity”.
I just looked at the authors of that study. Say what??
That really is a riddle to me. Authors:
John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart
These are the exact same people who introduced the word “Hiatus” when the warming slowed down to an almost standstill. Rather than let ANY skeptics even suggest that perhaps it had stopped, they declared it a “Hiatus” a “Pause” because in their minds, SURELY, it was not just going to pick back up again, but it was going escalate like crazy. Now, because it hasn’t intensified despite the every increasing amounts of CO2 being put into the air by humans, they are looking like idiots, laughing stocks, and no matter what Lewandowsky and Cook do….people are NOT buying into their propaganda.
So what now? 1)-deny that there ever was a slowdown at all. Enter Karl et al. Nope, we fixed the numbers, see…we’re still right….we were just more wrong in the past than we thought….
Nope. No dice. Polls among the public and scientists still dropping in terms of believing in AGW. More bloggers and more Joe Public math and science people are learning their tricks and how to read scientific papers published online and shucky darn…they are finding the errors in the math AND the methods even faster today than they have in the past-AND making sure others find out about it faster too.
2)-admit that there HAS BEEN a slowdown. Enter Frye et al AND get people like Michael Mann to sign on to it so that it appears like everyone is on the same page now-activist scientists AND other non-activist scientists. Try to close that growing RIFT in the AGW leaning to Pro-AGW side of things. Give a little ground…so that they can declare unity going forward and make it appear as though they have taken a good hard look at the models and the data and sure enough…it needs a little tweaking. Not MUCH mind you, just a little, and they will get right on that so that the NEXT IPCC report or US Gov report, or whatever is next-gets viewed as more correct than ever! Throw Karl et al 2015 under the bus….(which they think skeptics will love)….while waving what appears to be a white flag that might help regain some of the credibility they have lost.
But see…they have another problem. They redefined “global warming” to mean “man made global warming”. They tried to eliminate/ignore natural warming and natural climate change because any argument including the word “natural” or “past history” or “Earth’s trends” undermines their agenda. So they have convinced believers that ALL of the current “global warming” or “climate change” is HUMAN caused. When they say global warming…they mean HUMAN warming, not natural warming, or nature plus human…just human.
SO…..uh oh….if global warming is slowing down, or has slowed down, now idiot people will think that MAN MADE warming is slowing down. That the BAD, CONTROLLABLE/EVIL/REGULATE-ABLE stuff is slowing down…because we’ve created the environment in which Earth’s natural warming between glacial periods STOPPED in 1950 and human warming started and was set to become hotter than it has ever been by 2020!! And it looks like that might NOT actually happen and people are catching on. They go outside. They don’t see the signs of imminent doom beginning that all of those climate scientists predicted would have already started all over the world! They start to realize that they might very well look incredibly foolish.
If they could convince us that the planet was undermining them personally, I actually believe they might try to. But they look bad….really bad….and very, very wrong at the moment. So I suspect that they are taking one or two steps back…to look reasonable perhaps?…and hoping that everyone will forget that THEY brought the word Hiatus and Pause into current talking points, and accepting the word slowdown again….a word reasonable skeptics have always used or accepted. But just like the “satellites aren’t trustworthy” video, this will throw others under the bus and cause even MORE fracturing and division within the “scientific community”. Its like they just never really think their actions through to every possible, or even the most obvious, outcomes and see how damaging they will end up being. To them. To science. To their precious theory. It’s like one of them says “What if we…..(insert idea that will surely exonerate us and convert skeptics…except that we’re so far removed from the average person that it will most likely backfire horribly)” and the others all pile on with glee.
And the more desperate and self defeating they become, the more I love every minute of it. 🙂
Aphan:
Yes! And to support your points I add that the most recent IPCC Report (AR5) said the same as you say about the “Hiatus”.
Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says
GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
A “hiatus” is a stop.
And this was published three years ago by the IPCC in that is tasked to provide information supportive of the AGW hypothesis. The “Hiatus” continues and is now longer than 18 years.
Richard
Aphan….satellites aren’t trustworthy; Argo buoys not trustworthy, but the adjusted and homogenized land station records are trustworthy. Wonder how man believers know they are being played.
But, if they didn’t model this particular pause, then they’re just modelling random crap.
They only needed the “Pause” to disappear long enough for the Paris talks to finish.
+1
If it won’t fit, use a bigger hammer!
Read the paper:
‘A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al.26 concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “’stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”.’
They refer to it as a slowdown.
They are the ones who brought the words “stalled”, “paused” and “hiatus” into our current lexicon to counteract the use of words like stopped, or halted. But even though stalled and paused and hiatus are words that strongly imply the “return to a previous state” of something-they actually think that the public viewed those words and thought “Oh….it’s over. No more man made warming”. So they once again employ a propaganda tactic…just change the terminology-to “slowdown”-and THAT will manipulate the public into thinking about things slowing down and speeding up…but never pausing or stalling. We’ll appear more trustworthy for appearing to “rebutt” the Karl et al 2015 paper, and skeptics will view us as being more on their side than we really are.
Hello….climate scientists? It’s NOT your communication problem…that is really the problem. It’s YOUR THEORY. You can make up names and methods and terrors and everything else you want to….but its your data and your methods that PROVE that your theory is flawed at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Why else would you hide it, or hold it back from publication, or put your court cases against others on HOLD for years when they counter sue in order to SEE it? Joining up with clowns like Lewandowsky and Cook only makes you look like idiots in both the science AND communications departments. And so does quoting them in any scientific paper you want people to take seriously.
Aphan says:
“Hello….climate scientists? It’s NOT your communication problem…that is really the problem. It’s YOUR THEORY. You can make up names and methods and terrors and everything else you want to….but its your data and your methods that PROVE that your theory is flawed at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Why else would you hide it, or hold it back from publication, or put your court cases against others on HOLD for years when they counter sue in order to SEE it? Joining up with clowns like Lewandowsky and Cook only makes you look like idiots in both the science AND communications departments. And so does quoting them in any scientific paper you want people to take seriously.”
And that has to be the paragraph of the century so far.
It captures the idiocy of the warmist position perfectly. Oh, if only it had come off my pen.
The most neutral term is “plateaued”
The old “distinction without a difference”.
Or, as my dad would have it, picking the fly poop out of the pepper.
Closest thing you’re going to see to a white flag from this crew.
This was one of the points that Anthony and I raised on the day Karl et al (2015) was published:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
That’s exactly what I thought when I read the press release this morning and it certainly isn’t the first nor last time that skeptics beat them to the punch and get no recognition.
You can almost predict what rational climate research will be published 6-12 months from now by reading this site.
You have called Science on Demand . .
This service is brought to you by the team at Global Climate Science™ Policy Defenders.
We’re from the Government and we’re here to help you.
All our operators are busy at the moment but your call is important to us.
If you’d like to hear this message again, press 1.
If you’d like to hear from our Climate Science Communicator, press 2.
If you’d like to hear from our Climate Psychology Communicator, press 3.
If you’d like to see the data, press 4, and a message will be sent to one of our consultants.
For all other enquiries, press 1.
Norway Rat says:
They refer to it as a slowdown.
Satellite data, corroborated by radiosonde balloon data, shows that global warming stopped.
To quote Chico Marx: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
“Satellite data, corroborated by radiosonde balloon data, shows that global warming stopped.”
Radiosonde data certainly doesn’t say that. Here is part of Christy’s Senate graph. No stoppage there:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/2/christy.png
Compared with NASA/GISS, it’s just about a perfect correlation.☺
Nick, what is the trend on that tiny little slice of a graph that you don’t want to show the rest of?….cause, if you put a trend on just what you showed….it looks like it’s still cooling.
LOL on you.
“it looks like it’s still cooling.”
The segment shows from 1997 to 2015. The horizontal lines are at 0.2°C intervals. so the radiosonde record rose about 0.3°C while allegedly “stopped” for 18 years. You can see the complete plot here.
Nick Stokes,
There was a temporary divergence, but it’s back to a good correlation again. When radiosondes are launched, there’s no telling exactly where they will go. But even with that small and temporary divergence, it’s clear that global warming stopped many years ago.
If the alarmist scientists followed the Scientific Method, they would acknowledge that their CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified, then go back and formulate a new hypothesis to explain what’s happening, because observations show that their old hypothesis was wrong. That’s how the Scientific Method works: falsifiability and testability are necessary. But in Climate Science™ those necessary elements are ignored.
Instead, the alarmist scientists insist that their original hypothesis was correct. No amount of real world evidence can make them follow the Scientific Method, as they should.
See what happens when enormous piles of money are dangled in front of climate scientists? They react just like any other group that contains a dishonest element: the group obeys Grisham’s Law, and the crooked ones force the honest ones out. Scientists have been trained with grant funds like Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.
The bottom line is this: the endless predictions warning of runaway global warming and all kinds of climate catastrophes were wrong. It only takes being wrong once, but there are literally hundreds of examples. So now the whole debate is based on politics, not on science. Climate alarmism has a thin veneer of science on top, but that’s only for the general public. The fact is that the ‘dangerous manmade global warming’ scare has turned into a hoax, and easy grant money is the reason.
That money does not go to scientists who point out that what we’re observing is consistent with natural climate variability. As we see in countless articles here and elsewhere, a large part of the scientific establishment is now angling for a share of that taxpayer loot — and as pointed out by many others, they won’t get much if any of that grant money if the’re honest, and point out that the rise in CO2 (by only one (1) part in 10,000, over a century) is a non-problem. On balance the added CO2 has been a net benefit, with no observed downside.
“There was a temporary divergence”
So global warming stopped, except when it stopped stopping.
You’re a deceitful and [snip], Mr. Stokes.
You may be related to Sir George Stokes, but it’s a good thing he’s not around to see how you bastardize science and math for the sake of being a [snip] internet gatekeeper for your cause.
[snipped for language, per site policy -mod]
Michael Jankowski,
I think many of us have trouble not violating site policy on profanity when we think of the troll named Nick “anything to defend the team” Stokes.
The data is presented in 5 year running averages, so since it was cool before and after the 1998 El Nino the spike is lost. It is therefore correct to say that based on a 5 year running average of the satellite data there is a small increase since 1997. It is also correct to say that if a La Nina follows the current El Nino as most people expect then the 5 year averages will diminish the current 2015 spike.
When is a pause, faux-pause, slowdown, hiatus, not a pause, faux -……..etc. ?
It’s all in the hair splitting..;-)
This is hair-splitting: ‘Pause’, ‘hiatus’, ‘plateau’, etc., etc.
Fact: global warming stopped many years ago. Thus, the endless parsing, hair-splitting, and refusal to face reality by the climate alarmist cult.
Quite right, db: We surely reached a peak. If we didn’t (as per Stokes), then when will we? How will we know? The thing is, history definitely shows that climate rises and falls – falls being the operative word. So when will the likes of Stokes admit that climate is falling? Will Mann, having tried to hide the decline, now try to hide the pause?
On my earlier article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/08/is-noaas-hiatus-gone-now-includes-may-data/
I said:
“By this definition, even NOAA shows a hiatus since the recent ratio for 1975 to 2000 versus 2000 to 2015 is 1.717/1.143 or 1.50 so the preceding period has a slope that is 50% more than the latest slope.”
So WUWT readers were told this long ago.
Acknowledgement of a hiatus can be nothing more than a defensive posture to keep the gravy train rolling. Think of these two future scenarios: 1) Be allied with the group that claims that the hiatus doesn’t exist, and lose both credibility and funding if / when the hiatus continues or temps drop, 2) Claim the hiatus does exist, (supported by facts), without arguing specifically against AGW, and leave your options open.
Two more in that cartoon and you would have had The Last Supper, Josh ;o)
Really?
Exclusive: New York asks SEC to force climate vote onto Exxon proxy
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-shareholders-exclusive-idU…
Doesn’t the SEC have REAL ISSUES to deal with outside of this and watching porn?
What we need is an ensemble of global circulation models we could use to model the climate of the climate debate. Then the warmists could point to the computer models as ‘reasons’ why their viewpoints are so divergent. 😉
If they are using their own Canadian model, need we remind them that it is the one which always runs hottest and should have been chucked out long ago?