List of excuses for 'the pause' now up to 29

Richard,
I respectfully read your first post, and I know what the IPCC is. You are interpreting the IPCC report too literally, in my opinion. The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models. As the historical temperature record shows (1880 to present), temperatures have risen in a staircase pattern, and climate scientists readily admit the limitations of the models in predicting precisely when the “steps” will occur, thus it is no surprise that they did not predict the current “pause.”
A statistician named George Box once said, “All models are wrong, some are useful.” Pointing out all the ways that AOGCMs may be wrong does not convince me they are not useful. And in order to scientifically “debunk a myth,” one needs to come up with an alternative explanation that makes more sense. The AGW “theory” provides a completely coherent explanation of the temperature rise (surface and ocean), sea level rise, and ice melting we have seen over the last century.

@justaskin
“You are interpreting the IPCC report too literally, in my opinion. The AOGCMs are developed to project long-term trends (on the order of a century), not interdecadal variability, and the quote you’ve picked out is simply reporting the mean of the models.”
The IPCC reports clearly show that model predictions tightly track interdecadal variability, yet diverge significantly as soon as they move from hind-cast to forecast. The greater the interdecadal variability, the less certain one can be of climate models to predict the future over any time scale. This is because what change is caused by GHG’s and what change is caused by variability, becomes more difficult to distinguish. The longer the divergence, the less confident one can be in such models.

For “Justaskin” here is something from the site “Polarbearscience”. Just saying’ ….
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/07/29/sea-ice-experts-make-astonishing-admissions-to-polar-bear-specialists/#more-5600

Jim Clarke says:
July 30, 2014 at 7:33 am
It may be time to begin differentiation between ‘excuses’ and ‘reasons’. When people make an excuse, they are implying that their actions were in large part correct, but something unforeseen interfered with their expectations. In the case of climate change, excuses for the pause are designed to explain the lack of warming while maintaining the overall correctness of the CAGW theory.
But many items on the list are ‘reasons’ for the pause that actually undermine the CAGW theory and throw it in the dustbin of history.
Jim, I wholeheartedly agree. We need to note that the “excuses” are pathetic, and that the “reasons” are worthy of further examination and dissemination.
Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:12 pm
How come “The sky is falling” memo from NASA http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/ hasn’t made it? Pity, it’s fun reading for so many reasons. An update would be nice
Jaakko, I see this as one of the reasons the “CAGW due to increasing atmospheric CO2” theory is wrong. I particularly liked that linked page because in it NASA is actually admitting both that it does not fully understand how the solar cycle effects Earth’s atmosphere, and that CO2 can actually cool the upper atmosphere.
NASA says:
“The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.”
and:
“When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth’s atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.”
I think solar EUV variation partially explains how changes in the solar cycle can affect the Earth’s climate even though TSI changes very little. A simplified possible mechanism:
Heat input from the sun consistently warms the tropical oceans, regardless of the solar activity level. During a time of increased solar activity, TSI is only slightly increased, but EUV is greatly increased, as is the solar wind. Increased EUV warms the upper atmosphere world wide, while the increased solar wind warms the upper polar atmosphere and reduces cloud production in temperate zones.
Higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere cannot heat the ocean directly. However, the temperature of the upper atmosphere does affect the lower atmosphere’s temperature at night, and thus the ocean’s rate of radiated heat loss. In the tropics heat input from the sun dominates the ocean temperature. Heat loss rates dominate ocean temperature at the poles. A lower heat loss rate, especially at the poles, during periods of high solar activity means less cooling of polar waters, resulting in a warming ocean overall. This affects PDO, ENSO, Etc. If high solar activity persists, a global warm period such as the MWP results, not from increased TSI, but from lowered rates of cooling of polar oceans. A warmer ocean eventually means less polar sea ice. A warmer ocean also means more water vapor in the atmosphere, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and warmer air temps overall, but especially at the poles and on winter nights everywhere.
When solar activity drops, solar EUV radiation and the solar wind are reduced. The thermosphere temperature cools rapidly, especially at the poles. Higher atmospheric CO2 due to outgassing by the warm oceans contribute to thermosphere cooling. Polar air masses cool rapidly. As sea ice increases, reduced heat given off by exposed sea water allows polar air to cool even more. (Polar waters continue to cool, though rate of cooling is reduced by increased ice cover.) Cold polar air spilling into temperate zones produces suddenly colder winters. Temperatures drop first during winter, especially at night, as a colder upper atmosphere allows greater cooling of the lower atmosphere whenever the sun is not shining. Reduced solar wind also allows greater cloud production in temperate zones, resulting in cool wet summers. If solar activity remains low, a cold period ensues, such as the LIA. Again, reduced solar activity results in a cool period, not through reduced TSI, but via a colder upper atmosphere allowing greater cooling whenever and wherever the sun is not shining, coupled with increased cloudiness in temperate zones.
SR

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

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

Just today I posted this over on Tallblokes site;
In the NH summer of 2000 I spent several months working with an Australian Astro-meteorologist Jennifer Lawson author of a book “Countdown to Cataclysm, Violent Weather Predictions 2000 – 2001″. ISBN 1-56718-414-6
We looked at the lunar phases and declinational angles in regard to ENSO indices, to see which had the most pronounced effects, what we found was about the same as noted above in levels of el nino activity, mostly neutral at minimum declination angles, more enhanced but shorter spikier, activity associated with drought periods in Australia when the lunar declination was about the same as the apparent solar declination 22 degrees to 24 degrees. With the periods of most active weather, most rapid meridional flow surges, at the time of year when the solar and lunar declination at culmination were acting in tandem.
This was seen in tornado production and hurricane numbers and intensity increases, most enhanced for tornadoes (three days either side, centered) when there was a concurrent outer planetary heliocentric conjunction. And due to ion charging effects of the outer planetary conjunctions a decrease in Hurricane activity intensity the week before a conjunction and a rapid reactivation about 5 to 7 days after the outer planet heliocentric conjunction.
There was seen in the historical data increases in drought conditions in Australia, and longer lived EL Nino effects at lunar maximum declination of around 27 to 28 degrees, the symotainious Heliocentric conjunctions of Neptune with Uranus in the NH summer months in 1993 and the slow passing speeds kept them close together through the lunar declination maximum angle culmination in 2005, before it started to decrease.
I think it was the increased summer NH magnetically driven (as a result of most of the outer planets were being passed by the earth in the NH summers) solar wind ion scavenging of the upper troposphere through the 1982 to 1998 period that let more of the solar output reach the seas to effect the GW that we saw for that period, and the massive hurricane outbreak in 2005 was the result of the lunar declination going past peak, as Neptune and Uranus was shifting into the months of August/September, so the result was an outpouring of the extra heat in the oceans as the ion content of the tropical troposphere was decreasing from its high concentration of cat+ ions into the rest of the atmospheric tidal bulges, with outpouring of the polar air masses (carrying the excess -ions) that made the discharge of the earth’s global circuit through the precipitation of the charge carrying water vapor/clouds.
The great maximum EL NINO in IIRC 1998 was given additional power and duration by the heliocentric conjunction of earth with Mars on the 17th of March 1997, Jupiter with Uranus on the 27th of March, (setting up the spring tornadoes), then Earth with Neptune on the 21st of July, Uranus on the 29th of July, Earth with Jupiter on the 9th of August, then a resumption of hurricane activity until the earth Saturn helio-conjunction 10th of October 1997. Then in 1998 the well started global oscillation in the atmosphere got another boost with the heliocentric conjunctions of earth with Neptune on 23rd of July, Uranus on the 3rd of August, Jupiter on the 16th of September, and Saturn on the 23rd of October 1998.
After these big surges in global circulation it has calmed down consistently, but with the major storms introduced from the outer planetary conjunctions moving into the fall and winter months coinciding with the large snow storms in the NE USA, Europe, China, and Mongolia of late, and are directly responsible for the “global pause” the same as they were responsible for the “global warming” and as they continue to spread throughout the year we will see “normal weather across most of the globe with low levels of tornadoes and Hurricanes, until the lunar declination increases up close to 21-22 degrees at culmination, then the tornado activity will resume.
I had not been aware of the East/West trends in the trades until now and I will watch it with abated breath, thanks for your comments.
Richard Holle

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

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

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