The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn't warmed for the last 15 years

Explanation #10 for the pause …”coincidence” has just completed the top 10 list, thanks Gavin! Party on! Excellent!

top10_pause_explanations

There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:

  1. New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
  2. THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it.
  3. Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Kaufmann et al 2011.
  4. The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
  5. Cowtan and Way’s (2013) underrepresented Arctic stations get adjustment to fiddle the numbers so that ‘pause’ never existed, but not so fast. It seems all isn’t quite as it seems. Dr. Judith Curry doesn’t think much of it either.
  6. Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming, says CU study – Neely et al March 2013: A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
  7. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Solomon et al, 2010 Science Magazine.: Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.’
  8. Slower Pacific Trade winds caused the pause England Et al 2014. A paper published today in Nature Climate Change adds the eighth excuse for the ‘pause’ in global warming: strengthened Pacific trade winds, which according to the authors, were “not captured [simulated] by climate models.” On the basis of those same highly-flawed climate models, the authors predict rapid global warming will resume in a decade or so when those trade winds abate. But in 2006, we were told the opposite.
  9. Stadium Waves. Wyatt and Curry 2013. Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming. Not un-plausible.
  10. Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends” Schmidt et al 2014. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt et al says: ‘Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter.’

More on #10, from Andrew Montford, who writes in The mind-boggling coincidence hypothesis:

============================================================

Schmidt and his colleagues are looking at the hiatus in surface temperature rises and considers why the CMIP5 ensemble all got it so wrong. In their new paper they explain that the reason for this is not – as wild-eyed readers at BH might think – that the models are wonky. In fact it’s all down to an incredible, incredible coincidence

Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.

Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and ‘reanalyses’ of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.

We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations. Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, the climate modellers can fit their square peg into a round hole. It wasn’t that the models were running too hot, it was just that nature has got it in for climate modellers.

============================================================

You can see Schmidt et al Reconciling warming trends here

0 0 vote
Article Rating
170 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LB
February 28, 2014 12:11 am

Coincidence = natural variation.
Not unplausible either.

Goldie
February 28, 2014 12:11 am

I have been studying the Earth for at least 40 years and though I believe in many things I do not believe in coincidence.

Admad
February 28, 2014 12:12 am

Nice to see that the science is settled, then.

Peter Azlac
February 28, 2014 12:14 am

11. The chicken’s (h)entrails used to parametrize the models on the models weren’t fresh!

Ken Hall
February 28, 2014 12:16 am

12, Pine forests emitting that lovely pine scent.

Peter Azlac
February 28, 2014 12:16 am

Sorry too many models!

James Bull
February 28, 2014 12:20 am

My children used to like playing hide and seek but as they grew up they lost interest in it but it seems many “claim-it” scientists still like looking even when no ones hiding.
These have a hint of “the dog ate my homework” about them.
James Bull

ConfusedPhoton
February 28, 2014 12:23 am

The verbiage from pseudoscience seems to be exponentially increasing.
It must be caused by CO2, no other explanation!

AndyG55
February 28, 2014 12:30 am

No Gavin..
coincidence and data manipulation gave the short warming from 1970-1998 on which your whole flatulence is based.
That you have made an [ABJECT] FOOL of yourself?
No coincidence….. A natural, easily explained occurrence

AndyG55
February 28, 2014 12:30 am

Ken Hall says:
12, Pine forests emitting that lovely pine scent.
Which they only started doing this century.

Rhys Jaggar
February 28, 2014 12:37 am

11. Dubya got elected through hanging chads.
12. That reactionary autocrat Putin used the FSB to cause it.
13. Anthony Watts is a malware virus sent to earth by aliens to infect all weather stations and cause faulty thermometer readings.
14. Oprah’s anger management classes for Americans were just TOO GOOD!!
15. Holding the Olympics in the USA twice in 6 years caused it.

Lance Wallace
February 28, 2014 12:38 am

It appears that 6 or 7 of the 10 are attributed to natural variation, something the IPCC “considered” (briefly) and dismissed in all 5 reports. #3 & #4 (Chinese coal and the CFCs) are anthropogenic. #5 (Arctic stations) is “anthropogenic” (human error). I neve understood the stadium wave so don’t know how to classify it.
What is “hi” in the first reason (solar variation)? Mods: Could you explain or correct that?

David L
February 28, 2014 12:39 am

Wow. Gavin’s paper would not have passed peer review by my post doctoral advisor. He would say he absolutely did not believe in coincidence any time someone uttered the word. He would actually get agitated.

Admin
February 28, 2014 12:41 am

I’d rather listen to a scientist who believes in coincidence, than listen to a scientist who got it right – after all, the scientist who got it right didn’t win a nobble prize! 🙂
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

AndyL
February 28, 2014 12:42 am

[Matthew] English concludes an article on RC as follows:
Summing up all of the documented contributions to the hiatus, spanning ocean heat uptake, reduced radiation reaching Earth’s surface, and data gaps, climate scientists have probably accounted for the hiatus twice over. Of course each effect is not linearly additive, but even so, many experts are now asking why hasn’t the past decade been one of considerable cooling in global mean air-temperatures? Or put another way, why isn’t the model-observed gap even wider? One way to explain this is that the current generation of climate models may be too low in their climate sensitivity – an argument made recently by Sherwood et al in relation to unresolved cloud physics. A perhaps completely unexpected conclusion when analysts first noticed the model-observed divergence progressing over the past decade.
.
So, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that some of the explanations for the hiatus must be wrong, he assumes they are all correct and that the models underestimate sensitivity.

AndyL
February 28, 2014 12:44 am

Apologies – It was Matthew Enland who made the above comments. I should have checked.

Bernd Palmer
February 28, 2014 12:45 am

That settles the science then. Move on, nothing to see.

Konrad
February 28, 2014 12:48 am

It is becoming increasingly clear that 97% of climate pseudo scientists have 95% confidence that they deserve vicious and sustained public flogging and are desperately trying to delay the inevitable.
But they cannot escape the inevitable. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. The shame of the pseudo scientists will burn forever on the Internet.

Lew Skannen
February 28, 2014 12:50 am

You missed the most obvious one – climate change.
It has been the cause of everything including a pause in itself.

David L
February 28, 2014 12:54 am

” The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories”
——————
Therein lies the problem with model building when the science isn’t actually settled.
Honestly, it’s very hard to build a reliable model even for simple cases where the science is actually settled. Models work best to interpolate within the experimental space. Extrapolation is always difficult.

February 28, 2014 12:57 am

Wasn’t the original ‘pause’ paper (before it was called the ‘pause’ ) –
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Which blamed it largely on ENSO.

ren
February 28, 2014 1:01 am
TBear
February 28, 2014 1:01 am

Now it is my turn to say it: I am losing the will to live … (I’ll get over it, though.)

EW3
February 28, 2014 1:08 am

In that picture, the person on the left looks like little Mikey Mann on Friday night.
The person on the right looks like little Mikey Mann on Saturday night.

NikFromNYC
February 28, 2014 1:08 am

To paraphrase Tallbloke:
“If the negative coincidences of natural variations are sufficiently geo-effective in the 21st century to cancel the alleged effect of extra airborne co2 on surface temperature, how much did positive coincidences contribute to the warming of the late 20th century?”

Terry
February 28, 2014 1:16 am

Don’t forget the LAST resort that is yet to rear its ugly head. ……the observed data is wrong and needs more adjustment and homogenization torture to fit the models.

Mindert Eiting
February 28, 2014 1:19 am

11. Availability of satellite data.

SAMURAI
February 28, 2014 1:23 am

Correction:
Regarding reason #8, the England et al paper was about Stronger trade winds causing The Pause, not weaker trade winds….
The 2006 Vecchi et al paper suggested weaker trade winds were causing The Pause…
BTW, when The Guardian ran the England et al story, I mentioned in the comment section of the article about the 2006 Vecchi et al paper, claimed the complete opposite…
The Guardian gatekeepers removed my post as “inappropriate”…
Since when is the simple truth “inappropriate”…
Jeez… These poor people are getting desperate…

Bloke down the pub
February 28, 2014 1:25 am

Desperation is the word that springs to mind. Gavin still fails to recognise that every excuse that is created to explain the pause, also creates a new explaination for the original rise.
‘ Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic’. That never stopped a warmist before.

Henry Galt
February 28, 2014 1:28 am

Give me strength. With every pissant excuse these streaks of piss offer up they are pissing away more of my children’s future prosperity. They are pissing all over us. I am more pissed off with them by the day. I wish they would just piss off as they are starting to make me inarticulate.

urederra
February 28, 2014 1:28 am

It is also a coincidence that the Earth is in the center of the Universe.

alanpurus
February 28, 2014 1:29 am

In other words, the models were based on a uniformitarian assumption. To apply to a planetary system of climate that undergoes constant seasonal, cyclic and often unpredictable changes. An unshakeable premise for long term predictions then.

Mike T
February 28, 2014 1:38 am

Haven’t you guys heard of the perfectly normal English word “implausible”? Where did “un-plausible” come from?

Joe Public
February 28, 2014 1:47 am

But what if ‘coincidence’ also caused the previous temperature rise?

ozspeaksup
February 28, 2014 1:57 am

reckon #1 should be
we were bullshitting all along

Jimbo
February 28, 2014 1:59 am

If only we had the CMIP5 models back in the day. It could have been used to good effect. Did the oceans eat the global warming back then too?
[Hypothetical date]

1955
Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1940.

ch
February 28, 2014 2:01 am

[Since when is the simple truth “inappropriate”…]
They should have said “inconvenient.”

Brad R
February 28, 2014 2:06 am

Or, perhaps this is what they should have said:
“Here we argue that an unanticipated factor, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of canine-free climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used projections thereafter. Any recent canine acquisitions to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the acquisition of one or more dogs, and their unanticipated appetite for global warming, all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that the dog was not going to eat the global warming, an assumption we now believe not to be the case.”

James Allison
February 28, 2014 2:10 am

A coincidence brought together a combination of factors and they conspired to dampen the warming trend. Nice one Gav!

Louis Hooffstetter
February 28, 2014 2:17 am

This is the same logic used by witch doctors.

February 28, 2014 2:22 am

Try this one by Santer et al. http://www.thegwpf.org/volcanoes-20-year-pause/

pat
February 28, 2014 2:26 am

as i posted on joanne nova’s site –
whatever:
28 Feb: International Business Times: Investments in Renewable Energy Being Questioned Following Hiatus of Global Warming
by Esther Tanquintic-Misa:
With the world now experiencing a slowing global warming, sceptics have started questioning the importance and necessity of the investments made into renewable energy by all member nations of planet Earth. But science bodies in the U.S. and UK assured the investments remain well in track as the warming hiatus is just temporary…
While there has been a short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface since the exceptionally warm 1998, that “does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases,” according to a report by Britain’s Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists continue to find the case for the warming hiatus. Some attributed it to the shifts in the oceans that are absorbing more heat from the atmosphere. Others suggested the sun-dimming volcanic eruptions or a lower output from the sun contribute to the slowdown.
If the Pacific winds were to be believed, the current hiatus could persist until nearly 2020…
Thirteen out of the 14 warmest years on record had been since 2000.
“I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/541008/20140228/renewable-energy-hiatus-global-warming-climate-change.htm

Joe
February 28, 2014 2:27 am

So, if we have a curve-fitted model that doesn’t follow observations, and we re-fit it to the new observations, it will then fit the new observations better.
No shit, Sherlock?

February 28, 2014 2:33 am

listen guys we being too hard. They know they right they just need more time for to ‘get the evidence’. Lets just view it as therapy for the Munch Screamers as they ‘come down’ from the hysteria of trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist except in their heads.
The Munch Scream Feedback Code
IF
1 unvalidated model—->predictions—–>hysteria
THEN
2 more unvalidated models-more predictions-more hysteria
GOTO 1

DEEBEE
February 28, 2014 2:36 am

So all Gav is admitting is that after all the billions spent, they have no f**king idea of predicting climate. They can only describe it after the fact.

Greig
February 28, 2014 2:40 am

Schimidt et al are just tweaking the model parameters (solar variance, aerosols, ENSO) until the models “almost” fit observations. It’s so silly it’s laughable. Anything, anything! but accept that TCR is lower than expected.

george e. smith
February 28, 2014 2:42 am

Co-incidence is when two things coincide. Well there are also parallel multi-incidences, where n-things coincide. ( dn. dt <= h/2pi ). Happens everywhere all the time. Nothing to see here, move along.

Peter Miller
February 28, 2014 2:42 am

My personal belief is that Mother Nature does not like people pretending to be scientists and then trying to mimic her through their dodgy simplistic models. Complex, chaotic bitches can be like that.
These people’s efforts are an affront to her dignity and this is her way of giving these ‘scientists’ the finger.
Makes more sense than any of Gavin’s ‘reasons’.

February 28, 2014 2:47 am

Gavin Schmidt is saying we have no idea what makes the surface temperatures go up and then down on planet earth as the temps have been doing for millions of years. Perhaps it is time to stop “adjusting” the temperature record and adding to the sea level measurements. Perhaps it is time to report honest data so we can honestly look for the causes.
The first step is observation. We must be able to look for patterns in the ups and downs so we can form theories about might be causing these swings. We don’t even know what causes a 1/2 degree C swing in the average temperatures — and we have no hope at present of explaining what causes glaciers advance to the extent that the north east U.S. is under perhaps 5km of ice.
Honest data Gavin! We need the team to start demanding all government agencies produce honest data!

February 28, 2014 2:48 am

Where have all these counterwarming elements been for the past so many years? Reminds me
of weather forecasters who blame “unexpected wind currents” for recent forecast failures.

February 28, 2014 2:49 am

Dang. I wanted to close the bold tag after one word and something went wrong. My bad.

February 28, 2014 2:57 am

in psychology type 1 errors like false positive errors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive#Type_I_error can lead to anxiety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety which can be treated by CBT
” Therapists or computer-based programs use CBT techniques to help individuals challenge their patterns and beliefs and replace “errors in thinking such as overgeneralizing, magnifying negatives, minimizing positives and catastrophizing” with “more realistic and effective thoughts, thus decreasing emotional distress and self-defeating behavior” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
the whole co2=warming is characterised by catastrophizing?
if the evidence was not enough to change people’s theories and they cling to hypothesis in spite of the facts then really we need to be looking at other methods for them? Merely presenting the evidence to them or the failure of them to find evidence will only work on a rational mind? If so then no matter what evidence was presented to them they wouldn’t accept it?

troe
February 28, 2014 2:58 am

How bizarre. The popular media hacks deny the science while the alarmist scientists scramble to find answers to a divergence they cannot deny.
We live in interesting times.

February 28, 2014 2:58 am

AndyG55 says:
February 28, 2014 at 12:30 am
Ken Hall says:
12, Pine forests emitting that lovely pine scent.
Which they only started doing this century.

Because of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming brought on by the CO2 released from using fossil fuels for economic development.

February 28, 2014 3:05 am

someone needs to ask them at what point will they give up? What is the final barrier that would make them reconsider? When does the experiment fail?
At the moment we have their predictions that go out 100 years. which is a basically ‘not in my lifetime’ statement? So it looks to me there is NO point EVER they would give it up the co2 deathstar. Which is not science. Its a mania.
they cannot identify when their experiment fails .

Kenny
February 28, 2014 3:22 am

I just read the paper from Trenberth and Fasullo 2013….”The ocean ate my heat”….and found this on page 30…
“Natural variations in clouds, changes in the Sun, and increases in minor volcanic eruptions may have accounted for up to a 20% reduction in radiative forcing and TOA energy imbalance in part of the 2000’s but the Sun has now recovered and is now a factor in increased warming.”
The Sun has now recovered? Solar cycle 24 was one of the weakest in a century….and 25 looks to be weaker. Please excuse my ignorance…..but did I miss something?

M Courtney
February 28, 2014 3:22 am

Gavin Schmidt et al would be banned from the Guardian for such blatant Climate Denial.
The pause isn’t happening at all – SkS say so.

RichardLH
February 28, 2014 3:30 am

Co-incidentally we have Volcanoes, then SO2 and then CO2 just happening along it the right time span and with the right magnitudes to produce a remarkably regular pattern since 1850.
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
That is SOME Co-incidence!

Alan the Brit
February 28, 2014 3:34 am

You know, you are a bunch of cynical old buggers!
It cannot be variations in Solar output! FACT! They have repeatedly told us in ALL 5 UNIPCC reports that the Sun doesn’t affect Climate here on Earth! Except in the past of course, & every other time the Earth’s Climate has changed, but definitely NOT now!!!! Do they really think the populous is that stupid? I think they really do, & they think that they possess a so much more superior intellect with it. I think that is the definition of arrogance!

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
February 28, 2014 3:48 am

I don’t get why ‘Stadium Waves’ is included. That in my mind is hardly a pro-AGW excuse.

Bill Illis
February 28, 2014 3:56 am

Coincidence has to be one of the last resorts isn’t it.
If there is no warming for another 3 or 4 years, will they then take the next step and start rewriting the theory?
Probably not, there are hundreds of other explanations that 10,000 idle scientists can come up with.

John
February 28, 2014 4:04 am

Seems to me all those reasons (save coincidence) have been acting for the entire life of this planet.

Chris D.
February 28, 2014 4:07 am

“Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.”
What a stunning admission by Schmidt!

February 28, 2014 4:09 am

Love the Pic from Wayne World.
I recently found your web site, and wanted to say grats, thanks, and keep up the great work

February 28, 2014 4:11 am

It was Satan made it happen – he’s the great deceiver! Have faith brother/sister! Trust in the IPCC!
The ushers will now move amongst you – give, give so we can continue the lords great work. Hallelujah!

February 28, 2014 4:11 am

Rock and Roll!
That what’s to blame.
With out Rock and Roll.
There would not be so much hot dancing.

Crispin in Waterloo
February 28, 2014 4:13 am

I liked the Aussie’s explanation best so far: Excuse 1 = they have been bullshitting us, á-labs-Mann.
There was no detectable human-induced trend to begin with therefore there is nothing to explain. At some point the wringing of hands will transition to the washing of hands.
Gavin’s Coincidence: the less-than-1-in-a-1000-chance that bad scientists using bad methods to simulate badly adjusted data forced by badly understood natural causes would make bad predictions of future data points.
The hiatus I look forward to is the cessation of tampering and a pause in the manufacture of artful dodger explanations that delay the very necessary review and reduction of the estimated forcing effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

Crispin in Waterloo
February 28, 2014 4:15 am

My intention was
Bullshit-a-la-Mann
[Grrr…autocorrect function…]

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
February 28, 2014 4:16 am

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: A puddle (if it could think) would find it a remarkable coincidence that it had found a depression in the ground that fitted it perfectly. (Religious people hate this). I miss you, Mr Adams.

February 28, 2014 4:18 am

anyone have a link or copy i can check out of the Gavin Schmidt and others article
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
Would be interesting to read this crap. If I was Gavin I think I would be doing some serious back peddling
Check out this video inside F-16 low and fast in snowy mountains
http://ianbachusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/friends-f-16s-in-south-korea/
Caution may cause dizziness, overwhelming faith in mankind’s abilities, vertigo
Cheers !

DC Cowboy
Editor
February 28, 2014 4:26 am

So, if the ‘pause’ over the last 17 years is a ‘coincidence’ of unforeseen factors, isn’t the explanation for the temp increase from 1978-1998 also able to be explained away as ‘coincidence’?

February 28, 2014 4:36 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
We need a top ten list for why climate alarmists won’t give up their obviously failed memes. Group think, just cause corruption, among other things, but it seems to me the most obvious reason the alarmists hold to their beliefs is that their beliefs are in fact the faith of their new religion. Yes, climate alarmism is a cult, a religion, or perhaps better stated as a substitute for the religion that most of us use to nourish our souls. Such a religion as theirs only poisons souls.

February 28, 2014 4:37 am

If anyone has access to a copy, please send it to me. Thanks!
[A copy of what? Mod]

Richard Lyman
February 28, 2014 4:44 am

I have to be missing something. Wasn’t it the burning of coal that got us into this catastrophic death spiral to begin with? It would appear that now the cause of global warming (the science is settled) is also the cure (equally settled?). EUREKA! All we have to do is decide what temperature it is we all like and burn just enough coal to keep it there. We’re saved!

Gerry - England
February 28, 2014 4:45 am

‘…solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s.’
The change in solar activity wasn’t unexpected for many. Landscheidt predicted it. But then why would this be a problem since it is claimed that the sun makes no difference to our climate?

February 28, 2014 5:10 am

Well, if you add all these up, it seems we’ve fully explained about 6 degrees of the missing 1 degree of warming. Keep this up and in another year or 2 they will have found enough excuses for us to forget about global warming altogether.

MattN
February 28, 2014 5:13 am

I am a process engineer making glass for the optical fiber industry. Since I started my first job out of school in 1997, I have NEVER seen a “coincidence”. When something goes wrong with the product, 100% of the time we trace it to some part that failed as the cause. It is NEVER just a coincidence that my glass is junk at the exact same time a mass flow controller failed. One caused the other.

Riki
February 28, 2014 5:22 am

Coincidental conspiracies. Conspiratorial coincidences. Well, at least it is alliterative. It is also an oxymoron. I am certain that all the morons involved will continue to seek out more coincidental conspiracies of natural forces to explain away their own incompetence. Aha! There you go – Incompetent Coincidental Conspiracies.
I suppose Gavin et al have no clue how absurd they sound? I’m keeping this one right alongside Trenberth’s Roving Hotspot.

michael hart
February 28, 2014 5:26 am

What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies” anywhere in the top 10? Shirley shome mishtake.

[why don’t you provide some evidence of this funding? . . This is a tolerant site but you make a bald statement like that, without back up and you expect to be taken seriously. Childish nonsense that I will leave up as an example of just how pathetic you and your ilk are. . . mod]

February 28, 2014 5:33 am

These Top 10 theories for “the pause” indicate that Nature’s God is conspiring to let some of the most “brilliant” among us make fools of themselves. The result has been a “dampening” of the “settled science.” Perhaps the time has come for taxpayers to demand a dissolution of the financial bands which have connected them with the purveyors of climate alarmism.

Rastech
February 28, 2014 5:40 am

So, given that “a large number of uncertainties produces a certainty” (Arthur Koestler “The Roots of Coincidence”), we now have the proof from the Warmists very own coincidence propositions, that there is absolutely no such thing as AGW (catastrophic or otherwise).
There certainly seems to be a significant degree of synchronicity, in the frequency they are able to shoot themselves in the feet?

Venter
February 28, 2014 5:42 am

Paper sent to you Jeff ID

February 28, 2014 5:47 am

These are 10 very good reasons why many climate scientists look pathetic. I have no respect for those of them who seem more interested in seeking cover rather than the truth. (Judith Curry, I am not talking about you, you are one of the exceptions, in my view.)

tom0mason
February 28, 2014 5:49 am

#11
Nature has got tired and so is having a nice long rest.

Rastech
February 28, 2014 5:54 am

Jauntycyclist: “they cannot identify when their experiment fails .”
They did that just prior to the grant paid work becoming the moving of goalposts.

Jean Parisot
February 28, 2014 5:55 am

Too much publicity, Gaia is shy?
More seriously, has the increased scrutiny reduced the measurement bias in the collection, reporting, and especially the analysis of temperature data. I still haven’t been convinced that the 20th century adjusted temperature record is valid.

Latitude
February 28, 2014 5:56 am

That’s comforting to know…..the computer games can accurately model weather and climate…
….but they can’t model coincidence
Either that…or they have been trying to model coincidence all along.

February 28, 2014 5:57 am

Michael Hart: Please provide examples of your claim “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies.” Also, I am sure many here would be interested in hearing your explanation for the years long pause in global warming. Thanks.

a dood
February 28, 2014 5:58 am

So, basically, climate modeling is just a big game of Calvinball. (Gavinball?)
THE UNOFFICIALLY OFFICIAL RULES OF CALVINBALL
1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game. The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.
1.5. The Calvinball Field (See Calvinball Equipment – 2.3) should consist of areas, or zones, which are governed by a set of rules declared spontaneously and inconsistently by players. Zones may be appear and disappear as often and wherever the player decides. Zones are often named for their effect. For example, a corollary zone would enable a player to make a corollary (sub-rule) to any rule that has been, will be, or might be declared. A pernicious poem place would require the intruder to do what the name implies. Or an opposite zone would enable a player to declare reverse playibility on the others. (Remember, the player would declare this zone oppositely by not declaring it.)
1.8. Score may be kept or disregarded. In the event that score is kept, it shall have no bearing on the game nor shall it have any logical consistency to it. (Legal scores include ‘Q to 12’, ‘BW-109 to YU-34, and ‘Nosebleed to Trousers’.)
http://www.picpak.net/calvin/calvinball

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 5:58 am

If co-incidence explains the pause, why does it not explain the late 20th century warming that the IPCC says cannot be explained except by CO2?
Nowhere in the IPCC report do they consider co-incidence as a climate forcing. Yet now apparently Gavin says that co-incidence is at least as powerful a forcing as CO2.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 6:10 am

michael hart says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:26 am
What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies”
====================
100 billion dollars in taxpayer money has been funneled to scientists willing to stand up and say “global warming is real”.
I’m pretty sure that with a 100 billion dollars I could find 100 thousand scientists around the world more than willing to stand up and say anything I asked them to. 100 billion dollars is 1 million dollars per scientists.
Most scientists out of grad school haven’t anything to their name except tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, and a bleak prospect of employment in the private sector. The government does not forgive student loans, even if you go personally bankrupt.
So, when the government comes along and offers serious coin to prostitute themselves to service their loans, they have no option but to bend over.

February 28, 2014 6:14 am

Overall then, are they suggesting that any one of those would be enough to override their projected additional CO2 warming?
Or the more paranoid: they are all working against us?

Robertv
February 28, 2014 6:29 am

11. Because so many are now controlling the data they can’t manipulate it (so much).

G. Karst
February 28, 2014 6:36 am

Coincidence is the correct answer. It was extremely unlucky that the mild warming happened at a time of rapid CO2 rise. This coincidence diverted the entire field of science to a “catastrophic” end.
First reports are always misleading and climate scientist must correct themselves, and begin a course, of critical thinking. GK

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 6:40 am

Lance Wallace says:
February 28, 2014 at 12:38 am
What is “hi” in the first reason (solar variation)? Mods: Could you explain or correct that?

Repeated for emphasis.
[That is not clear right now. We’re looking at it. Mod]

JimS
February 28, 2014 6:41 am

How’s about, all the models used to project climate change were blond?

February 28, 2014 6:43 am

So the short answer is that there are at least 10 things (#10 is probably a multitude of factors) that are affecting climate that are NOT in climate models.
Kind of like engineers designing a plane but forgetting everything except the food cart.

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 6:50 am

Bloke down the pub says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:25 am
Desperation is the word that springs to mind.

“Denial” is my first choice.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 6:54 am

Isn’t co-incidence another name for Natural Variability? Didn’t the IPCC say that Natural Variability is low?
So, Gavin appears to be contradicting the IPCC.

RichardLH
February 28, 2014 6:55 am

michael hart says:
February 28, 2014 at 5:26 am
“What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies” anywhere in the top 10? Shirley shome mishtake.”
Do we just believe in what the data says as opposed to made up stuff.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters-1979-on.png

Booger Smoot
February 28, 2014 6:56 am

Lao Tzu has something to say about models, modelers and their supposed predictive powers that must be said often.
“Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.”
If these modelers can’t admit that they are working from a foundation of incomplete understanding and that prediction is a fool’s game, then they should be ignored by any right thinking person.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 7:00 am

Isn’t co-incidence another name for Natural Variability? Didn’t the IPCC say that Natural Variability is low? So, Gavin appears to be contradicting the IPCC.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 7:10 am

Lao Tzu has something to say
===========
Apparently Gavin is not a student of eastern wisdom:
Those who justify themselves do not convince.
Lao Tzu (c.604 – 531 B.C.)

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 7:12 am

Peter Miller says:
February 28, 2014 at 2:42 am
My personal belief is that Mother Nature does not like people pretending to be scientists and then trying to mimic her through their dodgy simplistic models. Complex, chaotic bitches can be like that.
These people’s efforts are an affront to her dignity and this is her way of giving these ‘scientists’ the finger.
Makes more sense than any of Gavin’s ‘reasons’.

Mother Nature or Nemesis (aka the Pranksters on Olympus).

rogerknights
February 28, 2014 7:17 am

How about: “Notional Academy of Sciences”?

Leon0112
February 28, 2014 7:21 am

Michael Hall – you forgot the sarc tag.

onlyme
February 28, 2014 7:24 am

Reading the precis regarding volcanic forcing, I find no reference to an actual measured increase in number, severity or length of eruption. In fact, the paper states, as usual, this claim of volcanic forcing being the reason is: “Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.” & ‘Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources.’ with the ‘observations’ evidently being SO2 concentrations.
Is there any database of actual vulcanism activity dating from about 1990 which would lend some credibility to this claim?
Additionally, the study shows an endpoint of 2010, I presume the authors are implying this volcanic upswing in SO2 output is continuing, but is there somewhere where this is actually stated?
Thx.

John
February 28, 2014 7:28 am

All hail the mighty Curve Fit!
We now return you to the usual Alarmism.

ferdberple
February 28, 2014 7:31 am

Booger Smoot says:
February 28, 2014 at 6:56 am
If these modelers can’t admit that they are working from a foundation of incomplete understanding and that prediction is a fool’s game, then they should be ignored by any right thinking person.
================
just about the only predictive science that works is the earth ocean tides. and that is based on Astrology. and US science in particular things Astrology is rubbish. Yet the Old Farmer’s Almanac, which is also based on Astrology regularly outperforms the climate models. Milankovitch cycles are also a form of Astrology. Climate prediction based on the position of the heavenly objects in the skies. Yet that is how early humans learned to predict the coming seasons. It is also the basis of how early humans learned to tell time.
Climate modellers ignore what has been proven to work, and instead try and predict the future state of a chaotic system from first principles. Something mathematics cannot achieve. Something that the IPCC has already recognized is impossible (“the butterfly effect”).

Jeff Alberts
February 28, 2014 7:36 am

If something is “conspiring”, then coincidence plays no part. Gavin apparently thinks climatic factors sit around in a smoke-filled room plotting the demise of climate predictions.
Lew and Dumbsky should look into this conspiracy ideation.

mbur
February 28, 2014 7:40 am

Is this a coincidence?
So, plants/animals grow over time into an existing climate and emit organic compounds and then those change that climate?
Is that climate change?
ref.—http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/a-case-of-the-vapours-source-of-climate-active-organic-aerosol-particles-pinned-down/
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.

aaron
February 28, 2014 7:48 am

I think it’s implausibe that they didn’t conflate natural and anthorpogenic warming when developing their models and calculating feedbacks/responses.

provoter
February 28, 2014 7:53 am

My summary of Gavin’s latest argument:
1) The only reason our models failed so spectacularly is because their basic assumptions are wrong. That means the models themselves are even more right than we thought.
2) Anyone who claims this logic is anything less than perfect is ipso facto in the pay of Big Oil and wants all life on Earth to end. Immediately.
3) Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to call up some friends who will peer review and publish this for me in some prestigious magazine, and then watch the world’s media proclaim its unassailable truth and moral wholesomeness. Thank you.
4) PS: [trimmed]

February 28, 2014 7:59 am

The Warming is Hiding in The Cooling …. Doh !
…………….. or something.
For Gawd’s Sake you people – PLEASE
Let’s get real and help each other out, instead of this
incessant trivial hairsplitting and points scoring, please.
It was the SUV gas what did it,
No wait you, it was the dirty coal power station,
I hope you can live with your bad self, and the smelly CO2 you caused.
Those Deniers, they are the scum of the Earth you know, aren’t they ?
No it was the SUN, or a Volcanoes has done it, or it was a Cosmic Ray Beam.
All lies, All lies, it was all made up by the fake computer models, and I never
took a cent from that gas/oil/coal/nuclear people, you know I didn’t, so why are
you saying that ? You’re the one, the one what did it, with your crazy windmill
and solar powe. Did you know a Solar Panel causes the death of a Chinese
Person every day in China because of the pollution you cause by your Solar
Beam Panel nonsense..
Jeeezzzuzzz
Grow up the lot of you !
it had to be said though
😉

aaron
February 28, 2014 8:05 am

This link has many, more precise models. Yet they acknowledge far more uncertainty.

February 28, 2014 8:06 am

#2 “The oceans ate it” seems to be about the most popular excuse -especially for Trenberth . However it is simply untrue. The latest and best analysis of the all the OHC data is at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Here Lyman and Johnson in Table 1 show that the uptake of heat in the 0- 100m depth declined almost 90% when the period 1983 – 2011 is compared with 2004 -2011. Significant declines are also shown at deeper levels .In short on currently cooling globe the shallower ocean levels are cooling first as one might reasonably expect. These data destroy Trenberth’s last hidey hole for the “missing” heat
I have been saying for some time that the GCM approach is inherently useless for forecasting climate and that another method i.e. pattern recognition or to use the NOAA jargon the “constructed analogue” approach is required . For a series of posts and forecasts of the coming cooling based on the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar “activity”see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.

Coach Springer
February 28, 2014 8:15 am

Draw a line under it and sum: They haven’t a clue why they’re wrong, but they’re sure they’re right.

Bruce Cobb
February 28, 2014 8:22 am

“…it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.”
“Unsatisfying.” Really? Not hugely embarrassing? No ethical issues, or creation of doubt about the entire basis of your work? Just not satisfying?
Wow.

MarkW
February 28, 2014 8:25 am

Coincidence, or negative feedback.
Take your pick.

RichardLH
February 28, 2014 8:28 am

Or natural variability

provoter
February 28, 2014 8:46 am

Mod: Didn’t realize my word choice was trim-worthy or I never would have typed it. Apologies for that, and lesson learned, but could you at least leave the part about “Orwell is a…” The only offensive word is the one that follows, so leaving it as “Orwell is a [snipped]” seems more fair. (Next time, I’ll just use “jerk,” BTW.) Once again, apologies all around.

February 28, 2014 8:53 am

Don’t you think Mother Nature is telling “climate scientist” you don’t know so much after all. “Do you think you can control me by controlling the burning of fossil fuel?”

john robertson
February 28, 2014 9:08 am

I do not know.
I wonder.
What if?
Words, phrases never to be uttered by “experts”
The team, twists, torques, rotates to avoid the obvious.
Insufficient data to support over enthusiastic claims.
We do not know.
Does not help the Great Cause.
Oh Gavin, Michael, the longer you bluster, the greater my rage.
Your stupidity has had sever consequences.
This foolish certainty is expensive, it frees dumb politicians from responsibility.
On the listings,
The list of all things attributed to global warming, will soon be shorter than the list of reasons the consensus was “mistaken”.
Whither the pause.

Vince Causey
February 28, 2014 9:17 am

Coincidence is not actually a hypothesis. It tells us nothing about the science.
Suppose people observed that drinking water from ponds and puddles often produces dysentry. You could come up with a hypothesis that there is something in the water which leads to disease, or if you are Gavin you could say it is a coincidence.
At best, “coincidence” purports to claim there is no connection between the two. so it could be taken as the null hypothesis. In climate, there isn’t even that fig leaf, because it is tantamount to saying there is no connection between the current temperature stasis and computer model predictions. Such a statement, on reflection, is illogical, because computer models do not predict such a stasis, so it makes no sense to say that it is a coincidence whilst asserting that models must be correct.
If the models are correct there can’t be a stasis, whether by coincidence or not, unless the models are incomplete, in which case – they are incorrect.

February 28, 2014 9:39 am

He used the words “coincidence” but the following word displays more accurately what he meant the cause to be: “conspiracy”.
it’s all due to a conspiracy, otherwise the Earth would have already fried.

JJ
February 28, 2014 9:42 am

Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations. Conspiring factors of errors in volcanic and solar inputs, representations of aerosols, and El Niño evolution, may explain most of the discrepancy.

i.e. The entirety of the allegedly observed ‘global warming’ effect lies well within the error of the mensuration of a handful of the inputs. Let alone all of them …

Taphonomic
February 28, 2014 9:44 am

Since 2005 it has been possible to use software, called SCIgen, to craft a “scholarly” paper that is nothing but computer generated gibberish. The use of this software has become more predominant and multiple papers have been published with nonsense results that are presented in correct format and references. It has gotten so bad that another program has been written to detect these papers.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia
This makes me wonder what results you would get using SCIgen on climate science and whether it has already been done with regard to the pause to get a paper that is basically claiming ignore that climate models are wrong because God plays dice with the climate.

DD More
February 28, 2014 9:47 am

We often said it, but they never listened. Anthony, how many postings have you put up over the last 8 years with the storyline “Climate Models Missing ???”. Have they ever updated the models for these factors?

February 28, 2014 9:49 am

The warmers should take heart – for failed doomsday cults, there is life after the apocalypse. Just ask Jehovah’s witnesses.

Bart
February 28, 2014 9:58 am

Bloke down the pub says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:25 am
“Gavin still fails to recognise that every excuse that is created to explain the pause, also creates a new explaination for the original rise.”
That is the nub. Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

Keith
February 28, 2014 10:10 am

Andy L at 1242 am…..
Mathew English said that the pause is because…….
Ha Ha excellent. His brother Jonny English is of course the well known British secret agent
(aka Rowan Atkinson aka Mr Bean aka Blackadder)

Jim G
February 28, 2014 10:18 am

#11. Undersea volcanic activity, which contributed to the pre 1997 warming, has moderated causing the “pause”. Forget CO2.
This stuff is sew simpl I shood be a climut siantist, or maybe I alredy are one.

February 28, 2014 10:36 am

Reason #11 – Because Cook’s cultish blog has it as a myth so its settled that there ain’t no stinkin pause.
John

3x2
February 28, 2014 10:48 am

11) Willis has been right all along. For all the magic gas we have thrown into the atmosphere, the average time that equatorial thunderstorms start has shifted by 15 minutes.

onlyme
February 28, 2014 10:49 am

pine trees, slower speed tradewinds (England and Vecchi seem to conclude the opposite from each other), and from the seneviratne paper lower ocean surface temperatures seems to make it 13 reasons now. Does the ‘new’ finding that animal belches emit CH4 count? If so that would make 14.

February 28, 2014 10:49 am

I’m going to have to employ their logic in my own field.
“Dave, the coordinates you provided caused us to drill into an existing pipeline!”
“Actually guys, I wasn’t wrong, its just a coincidence that there was an unexpected pipeline there.”
There, just saved myself from being responsible for my actions. Thank you climate science.
When the pitchfork weilding mob finally puts a stop to the consequence-free gravy train, the good scientists that stood by silent will have none of my sympathy.

Lil Fella from OZ
February 28, 2014 11:12 am

Don’t forget, there has not been enough money to find the warming!

February 28, 2014 11:20 am

Michael Hart: Why the lishp? And still waiting for examples of oil shills lying for $$$ and an explanation of why no warming in 17 years. C’mon Michael…

February 28, 2014 11:22 am

“A coincidence is what you have left over after you apply a bad theory.” ~JBS Haldane

M Courtney
February 28, 2014 11:25 am

michael hart says at February 28, 2014 at 5:26 am

What, no room for “fossil-fuel funded shills telling lies” anywhere in the top 10? Shirley shome mishtake.

Don’t worry mate. I got that you were taking the Michael.
If anyone thinks he was advocating that “fossil-fuel funded shills” were a real thing, please note he slurred his text like a drunken fool.
Clearly, michael hart was just putting forward that loony idea, which is pushed by Dana in the Guardian, in order to highlight its folly; the idea that even Gavin Schmidt won’t touch.
Once again, irony in text doesn’t translate across the Atlantic divide.

February 28, 2014 11:47 am

w.w.wygart says:
February 28, 2014 at 11:22 am
“A coincidence is what you have left over after you apply a bad theory.” ~JBS Haldane

– – – – – – – – –
w.w.wygart,
Thank you. That is a keeper.
John

Gail Combs
February 28, 2014 12:12 pm

jauntycyclist says:
February 28, 2014 at 3:05 am
someone needs to ask them at what point will they give up? What is the final barrier that would make them reconsider? When does the experiment fail?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When there is a mile high glacier sitting on top of Hansen’s and Mann’s offices and not before.
(Can we move their offices to Antarctica?)

Reply to  Gail Combs
February 28, 2014 1:13 pm

@Gail Combs – you mean UNDER Antarctica? That way they will lay claim to the land once all the ice melts.

February 28, 2014 12:39 pm

If the models are based on paleo- climate sensitivity assumptions, whats the point in writing a paper about the pause (which supposedly doesn’t matter in the long term)? Because if even if they find something interesting, it won’t affect their purpose in life, perhaps?
How to spot scientific advocates: Rule number one, the question is written for the answer.

Joe
February 28, 2014 12:48 pm

Gail Combs says:
February 28, 2014 at 12:12 pm
When there is a mile high glacier sitting on top of Hansen’s and Mann’s offices and not before.
————————————————————————————————————————
The trouble is, according to their rules even that doesn’t do itl. Unprecedented glaciation in Hansenville? Just more evidence of climate change, which we all know is caused by CO2.
By then most people will have forgotten that the supposed effect of CO2 on climate is to warm it – they already accept just about any change so glaciation is just another, if spectacular, example.

rob r
February 28, 2014 12:51 pm

…..a pause in the cause….?
…..the pause is strong in this one…..

u.k.(us)
February 28, 2014 3:13 pm

# 11
Quality control.

Fabi
February 28, 2014 3:18 pm

#11. NO Stairway to Heaven.

Jeef
February 28, 2014 4:21 pm

#11 – the dog ate my homework.

Steve
February 28, 2014 4:53 pm

“The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.” Yep, you were wrong, once again.
“Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic…” It is to laugh! Oh, but wait, apparently attributing climate trends over long periods will never be problematic! Absolutely, brilliant, Gav.

H.R.
February 28, 2014 6:32 pm

#11. Everyone kept saying, “Global Warming!? Aw, c’mon, mann… give it a rest, will ya?”
So Global Warming took a rest.

pat
February 28, 2014 7:00 pm

28 Feb: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Warming Pause Doesn’t Reverse Scientific View on Climate
“Our expectation as scientist always was to see very complex changes in the average temperature of the planet, and that’s exactly what we see,” Benjamin Santer, research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, said at a briefing today. “The key point is that the stasis, slowdown as people have termed it over the last 15 years, does not fundamentally invalidate our understanding of the human effects on climate.”…
“There will always be cold nights and cold days, but what we expect is that they will be rarer and rarer,” Fung (Inez Fung, professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Berkley) said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/warming-pause-doesn-t-reverse-scientific-view-on-climate.html

Half Tide Rock
February 28, 2014 7:12 pm

Excuse me but isn’t the point of interest that they are conceding that the models failed? That is the first step to creating a new model. Most of the hokus pokus is a search for another explanation. If the model shows no skill in prediction drop it! Stop annoying people.

Dr. Strangelove
February 28, 2014 7:42 pm

Schmidt et al are correct. The “pause” is due to incredible coincidence that the models failed to foresee. What they left unsaid is not only the pause but also all the warming and cooling can also be explained by incredible coincidences. The natural causes of this incredible coincidence did not start only in 1998.
“Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s.”
These have been operating for billions of years and they still cannot predict volcanic eruptions (except days before the event) and the uncertainty in aerosols is higher than CO2 forcing. Not to mention clouds and ocean circulations.

kenin
February 28, 2014 9:16 pm

Because it was never warming. Well, except in the cities where all the observations were taken…lol

kenin
February 28, 2014 9:19 pm

It only stopped warming after they had robbed everybody of their land, then it went back to normal.
hint hint, wink wink

nicke
February 28, 2014 10:31 pm

[snip . . mod]

ancientmariner
March 1, 2014 12:50 am

Folks, as far as I understand it the “coincidence” is that all the negative influences were all active at the same time. The cumulative effect being enough to overwhelm the anthropogenic. Of course the existence of the negative influences was denied until they could no longer be ignored and were then in fact required to explain the pause. The dishonesty in this science is extremely dangerous. Climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind, it is just that it is not the warming component that is dangerous it is the cooling. With the current science we will not know about cooling until it is too late.

RichardLH
March 1, 2014 1:22 am

These three graphs also show an considerable co-incidence that needs explaining.
AMO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-reconstructed-monthly-nao-rnao-monthly-anomalies.png
PDO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-hadcrut-overlay.png
and Climate
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
all marching along hand in hand for centuries! Not just more recently, like after the industrial revolution and later. Since the middle ages! 1400-1500 and around then. How does that stack up?

Philip Mulholland
March 1, 2014 2:06 am

Maybe explanation #7 has a similar idea to the 2007 paper of Ferenc M. Miskolczi Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
From his conclusions on page 35 :-

It seems that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains the balance between the absorbed short wave and emitted long wave radiation by keeping the total flux optical depth close to the theoretical equilibrium values. On local scale the regulatory role of the water vapor is apparent. On global scale, however, there cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, cannot work. We pointed to the importance of a characteristic altitude of about 2 km, where the cloud cover may control the SW input of the system without changing the global average OLR. To explain the observed increase in the global average surface temperature probably more attention should be paid to the changes in the net contribution from the Fº and Pº flux terms and changes in the global average water vapor content and cloud cover.

So there is also Miskolczi’s explanation #0: Carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate.

Steve
March 1, 2014 4:00 am

jauntycyclist says:
February 28, 2014 at 3:05 am
someone needs to ask them at what point will they give up? What is the final barrier that would make them reconsider? When does the experiment fail?
When the grant money dries up.

D. X.
March 1, 2014 7:23 am

Wow, Gavin becomes an AGW denier. “[Coincidence]” is the same thing as natural variation.

pstone
March 1, 2014 10:19 am

For the last 3 million years tbe earth is in an ice age… and still is. Within that age are periods of glaciation and interglaciation, colder and warmer respectivel. We have been in interglaciation for about 12,000 years (a warmer period withing the ice age) when and if the glaciation returns, 1/2 the USA will be under a sheet of ice as much as 1 mile thick!!!. If and when the the ice age ends the earth will return to its oldrr state (pre-3 millon yrs ago) in that state the avg temperature is about 5 – 8 deg C !!!!! I hope this uts all this talk of climate change into perspective and points out the folly that assumes if the climate change .. it must be humans doing it!!!

Pamela Gray
March 1, 2014 10:31 am

#11: karma’s my bitch

March 1, 2014 5:26 pm

@Jimbo…” If only we had the CMIP5 models back in the day. It could have been used to good effect. Did the oceans eat the global warming back then too? ”
That’s easy enough to do. Unless of course the IPCC threw that data away too. They could just run the old data against the new modeling tool. Wonder why they haven’t if it’s so good? Maybe back testing isn’t in the IPCC s best interest. Sort of like back testing for the MWP or the LIA.

RichardLH
March 2, 2014 3:28 am

#1: Natural variability is larger than allowed for in the climate model driven view of things.
Climate models do NOT account for the observed short term variability in the data series to date.
UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GIS
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
AMO/NAO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/amo/
PDO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/pdo/

RichardLH
March 2, 2014 3:52 am

Slice: There is little point in comparing trends over periods that are different.
This is a true picture of the data since 1979
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters-1979-on.png

Nick de Cusa
March 2, 2014 6:01 am

Article translated into French and published here :
http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/03/02/158162-climat-le-top-10-des-raisons-de-la-pause-de-15-ans-du-rechauffement
For the full list of Anthony’s articles in French :
http://www.contrepoints.org/author/anthony-watts
[Merci beaucoup. 8<) Mod]

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 3, 2014 11:17 am

There’s only one reason why the globe hasn’t “warmed”: CO2 is not a climate driver. Full stop.

%d bloggers like this: