The last time I wrote about this, it was ten:
Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming (thanks to The Hockey Schtick).
| RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming |
An updated list of at least 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
33. Methane from the rotting carcasses of polar bears and white possums.
The beauty of it is… the climate where I live really is changing. And I love it. We all love it. This some of the most beautiful “weather” we’ve had in a coon’s age. And the cool summer(s) actually started late last year. Yet then we’re probably gonna hate it this winter, we certainly did last winter. Brutal. But, shoot, I’ll take highs in the low 80s in July any day, and day after day. And it ain’t just a “weather phenomenon” if the coolness persists and continues. May not be global, but regional is all that matters, baby! To this tax-paying registered voter. Let this weather persist. I’m beggin ya.
Mod Reply:
I’m not the PC type myself, but we do live in a different world and some level of decorum is probably a good idea.
Source
~mod
It doesn’t matter how many ad hoc auxiliary assumptions you deploy to reconcile your theory with observational data. All that matters is how well each of these assumptions is justified by observational data and whether your theory still remains testable. If your theory says, “We will observe A under condition B, except when conditions C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J also hold,” then that’s fine. We can test that. If we get a bad result refuting it and you add “…and except when condition K holds” then you now have a new theory which can also be tested. When that theory is refuted, then we lather, rinse and repeat. If the assumptions add up to covering all possible observations, such that there are no conditions under which A might be observed, then your theory is not testable but idle speculation.
But at no case does in these iterations of refutation and ad hoc assumption does your theory “stand.” It gets blown out of the water at every step. You may be on to something big. If you feel you are, then keep adding ad hoc auxiliary assumptions and testing. On the other hand, you may spend the rest of your life iterating to no avail. You may also get to a point where your theory isn’t testable. Good luck!
rishrac says:
This is what passes as science. What I find curious is that CAWG is 100% wrong on everything. That’s almost impossible. I can’t point to anything and say they were right about that. As a scientific body, that should raise questions with skeptics and believers alike. If you look at any of the science from before that was wrong, some of it was right, maybe not exactly, but pretty close or at least useful. How can they claim certainty and be wrong at the same time?
Wonder if this is connected with all the climate models being “too warm”.
Possibly climate is something where there are more possibly “wrongs” than “rights”. Rather than being like a multiple choice test of picking from a small number of choices.
30. James Hansen retired.
(30) It’s Bush’s fault !!! ;-))
and (31). RACISM!!!
The Pause is proof; PROOF! I tell you that Clean, Renewable Energy is working. The temperatures have stop rising since the massive expansion of photovoltaic and wind turbine electricity production.
In simplest terms, the wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere and convert it into electricity. This reduction in atmospheric energy is measurable by the lack of temperature rise in the data.
If we continue on this path of expanding Clean, Renewable Energy, we will no longer need to use fossil fuels about the same time as we enter the next glaciation period.
/sarc
The Cult of Calamitous Climate is missing the true excuse, the one all paranoids know.
#1 Mother Nature hates me, mocks me and seeks to destroy my credibility.
A much more affirming reason than I am a fool who is absolutely certain based on insufficient data.
Heaven forbid that practitioners of “Climatology” might understand they could be mistaken and there fore wrong.
Perhaps liners predictions extrapolated from natural cycles, might be mistaken?
Especially on a water world?
Oops, wrong list.
For a theory to be accepted as science it must:
1) Actually agree with results
2) If it disagrees with results a reason why in this case the theory failed and a measurement of the purported reason to show that subtracting the reason would bring the result into conformity with the theory. (A volcano for instance)
3) The accuracy of the results are in doubt… I don’t think they think their own measurements are in doubt since they are fudging them constantly to bring them into as close conformity as they can with the theory.
This is what science is!!! Isn’t it?
Saying that it is just natural variation is not a reason. I don’t understand how any scientist can say the results of the last 17 years are not a disproof of the models. They have offered no good reason I have seen that could explain this without seriously compromising the future predictions of the models. I.e. if they admit the NAO/PDO are “the reason” then they should incorporate them into the results of the models or factor them out of the results for all time going back and show this does in fact explain the variation. To do so I believe would halve the sensitivity of the models forcing them to backtrack on the sensitivity number of +3.0C/doubling of CO2 reducing it to +1.5C which would put them at what they say is only 5% probable value for the doubling sensitivity. Also it may have unintended effects on the models accuracy for past results forcing them to admit that other previous statements were wrong as well.
Obviously then something is wrong with the theory of catastrophic warming because then getting to +3.0C will require getting to 1100parts/million CO2 which is not likely ever therefore the catastrophic effects they envision will never take place making the whole “scare” all for nothing. This is obviously unpalatable as well. However, true scientists are not SCARED of unpalatable things. Physicists are willing to say almost anything if it seems the results show that it is true. Yes, people fought quantum mechanics but nobody questioned the results or the fact something weird was happening that was confounding our ideas of how the world worked. Climate “scientists” seem to just want to ignore inconvenient data which is contrary to the scientific method. Real “scientists” would be chomping at the bit with excitement when they saw that the results weren’t fitting the models. They would be launching into dozens of theories for the “variance” instead of trying to obfuscate the failure.
I hesitate to use the term “scientists” because they don’t seem to be behaving as scientists and I am not sure what “science” they have actually. From what I’ve deduced the “scientists” don’t want to admit the NAO/PDO is the cause because they have no easy way to incorporate these effect in their “models” because these effects are not underlying physical phenomenon that can be calculated easily. The reason I think this is because they don’t understand how sunlight, deep ocean currents operate and what their values are so they haven’t figured out how to incorporate these phenomenon in a systematic way. They just have no explanation for the NAO/PDO so they prefer to think it will go away. One climate modeler told me this. He said the NAO and PDO would stop happening immediately. Well, clearly they aren’t stopping. Therefore they choose to ignore them. Anything they don’t understand they ignore. It’s not science.
Saying that it is because the heat was put into the deep ocean is not a reason because they have no explanation of why it went there, why it will stop going there, when it will come out of the deep ocean, therefore it renders all predictions from the models moot and unbelievable since they have no way of saying when the heat would return or how much would return.
They have to explain the reason for the failure or they have to accept that for all intents and purposes the models are invalid and discard them for the time being until they can be repaired. I am not saying this as an opinion. I am saying this is how science works. If a theory disagrees with results it is disproven unless they can say why it isn’t disproven. They have to admit at least that the probability the theory is correct at this point is very small, probably 5% or less. They can still say in “their opinion” they are going to figure out (future tense) why it failed this time but nobody should accept that as proof. It is a belief, not science.
I also don’t understand how the models are not disproven since the MWP and LIA have been shown by dozens of accepted scientific peer reviewed papers to exist. How they can simply ignore this. The models do not show an LIA or MWP. Therefore they are wrong. The lack of admission that they are wrong is bizarre to me. I cannot imagine in physics that someone would point out that finding the Higgs particle could be ignored. Theories that don’t show the LIA and MWP must be discarded or amended to include them. Also statements that say the temperatures are the highest in 1000 or 2000 years must be admitted are wrong statements since we don’t know this.
I would desperately like some scientists to put these facts and statements on paper to validate that science is still working. That at least some scientists still stick to the scientific method and the process of science is still intact with at least some scientists.
#30 Fewer airline flights since 9-11-2001.
No, not from less CO2, but rather less burning jet fuel blasting into airport based temp stations driving up the NOAA temp averages. However, apparently they have to “adjust the data” to compensate for this factor, artificially causing recent record hot months.
;>P
P.S. here in Michigan its been so cold I have had to fire up the methane to CO2 converters the last few nights (aka furnace), and its JULY!!!!!!!!!!
Whatever happened to the “Dog Days of Summer” and Al Gore’s promise of hot summers and disappearing winters?
#30 World governments are printing so much money for climate “science” grants that it has sequestered enough carbon dioxide to cause the pause.
Here’s their next one….Hackers Ruined our Data! There’s a link in the article to the official report released by the Office of the Inspector General last Friday. The media must have missed it! Enjoy
http://m.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/07/hacker-breached-noaa-satellite-data-contractors-pc/89771/
Numbers 8) and 25) should come directly after each other
8) faster trade winds
25) slower trade winds
Arg… Linear extrapolation of natural cycles.
For a bit of mid-week fun, here is a top 20 ‘skeptic’ list of all the reasons for the pause (some are deliberately tongue-in-cheek).
1. A saucepan of cold water cannot be heated from above to make the bottom warm.
2. It’s the small petrol driven generator (known as a combustion engine) which is attached the electric motors on all eco-cars so they are able to drive 30 miles before plugging in to the mains to ‘fill up’ with coal-fired electricity.
3. It is not our fault. It never was. It never will be.
4. Wealthy homes who can afford to have sixteen solar panels bolted to their roof are responsible for reflecting the sun’s heat back in to space.
5. The world’s population includes far too many tree-hugging gullible humans who are easily hoodwinked by false propaganda – including some fashion designers and pop stars. If we got rid of a few, it might start warming up again.
6. Highly imaginative phony climate models in the first place amplify the disappointment that it has not actually warmed up to their unprecedented expectations.
7. Snow has not become a ‘thing of the past’ after-all.
8. Domestic electricity bills have far-exceeded affordability just to offset colossal renewable subsidies. So we’re ‘switching off’ more. That’s why it’s paused.
9. Humans easily survive 30 degree C variations between winter and summer. Blame our adaptive wardrobes.
10. It’s the vast number UK’s disused quarries and pits that are filled with carefully recycled household waste. It is not all shipped to China. These holes in the ground filled with clean plastic bottles and yoghurt cartons are heat-sinks, god dammit.
11. It’s the increased use of detergent products and domestic hot water to clean all the recycled plastic (put in the correct coloured plastic wheelie-bin) that has caused the warming to stop.
12. The total amount of atmospheric CO2 is so tiny (when compared to all other atmospheric gasses); it is inconsequential to any catastrophic weather event. That’s why it’s paused.
13. Anthropogenic emissions account for 3.225% of all the CO2 in the sky. Even if we stopped producing the man-made bit (at enormous expense), it still would have no impact on the 96.775% of CO2 which is naturally occurring.
14. Despite all the hideous wind turbines spoiling our countryside (and wonderful views from the coast), renewable energy still contributes such a derisory amount to the actual power we need – and, more importantly, has an undetectable effect on carbon dioxide emissions.
15. All of us non-believing sceptical deniers have poured cold water on the crazy notion that the science is settled.
16. Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada – it’s their fault it’s not warming up as much as we thought.
17. It’s WUWT – that caused it.
18. It’s Wednesday evening and on my second glass of wine.
19. I can’t think of many other reasons.
20. Oh – yes ‘it’s called weather – and it was never warming up in the first place’.
How come “The sky is falling” memo from NASA http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/ hasn’t made it? Pity, it’s fun reading for so many reasons. An update would be nice.
Certainly there is now some hits..
I think it’s the all the tinfoil hats reflecting the solar radiation back into space…
Richard,
I have read the articles posted and understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (heat cannot pass from a warmer body to a colder body without external work being done), and your response does not make sense to me. The articles explain that the deep oceans (greater than 3600 m) respond at different timescales than the upper oceans (less than 2000 m deep), and so the cooling of deeper oceans (which could still be responding to the Little Ice Age) while the upper oceans have warmed over the last century in no way “debunks” anything.
Regarding “The Great Pause”, it is a term widely used on this website (in fact that’s where I first heard of it), including a recent post here by Lord Monckton.
I’d also like to know how you picked the year 2020 as a time at which we can determine that projections of AGW are “bunkem.” As anyone can see from the last century of data, there have been “pauses” in the past (e.g., 1940-1975): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
and so I don’t think waiting until 2020 will “prove” anything, and there is absolutely no evidence that global warming has “stopped” when one considers increased ocean heat content, melting ice, and sea level rise.
How about that they are simply wrong with their exaggerations and assumptions?
@Mosher
“In short seeing 20 or 30 or 100 suggestions about how to reconcile theory and data is absolutely normal science.”
What ridiculously commentary… When there is little to no fundamental understanding in a research field, such as economics, psychology and climatology, the establishment in that field doesn’t get to claim 95% certainty that most of the warming since 1950 was caused by factor X, and other such assertions of confidence. That’s what causes the field to be classified as ‘junk science’, not normative science. You are correct in one sense: junk science is sadly common in most poorly understood research fields.
justaskin:
All your original questions were answered in my original post at July 30, 2014 at 8:27 am. I provide this link to help you find it so you can try to read it this time.
At July 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm you respond to my original post by asking
Year 2020 was not “picked” by me. As I explained with a link, a citation, a quotation, and an explanation it was “picked” by the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I apologise for my original post using the acronym IPCC without explanation: I had assumed you knew sufficient about the subject for you to know what IPCC means.
Anyway, you can use the link I have provided to return to my post so you can try to read it this time.
Richard
Rhoda R says at July 30, 2014 at 9:57 am
It would be horrible, terrible, disgusting if that was true.
But it does fit the available evidence.
Best thing about the pause is watching half the warmists deny it and the other half explaining the cause of it. They can’t both be right.