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.
Thank you cesium62, I heard enough to see that you have closed your mind to reality for now…carry on…
cesium62:
Your post at July 31, 2014 at 1:14 am says in total
I made no “argument”.
My post at July 31, 2014 at 1:03 am explained a basic principle of the scientific method and it application to consideration of the AGW-hypothesis.
So, I am genuinely fascinated to know how you can twist what I wrote to indicate that “people should ignore hurricane warnings”. Please demonstrate that you can actually make this distortion which you claim you can: I want the laugh.
Richard
“in donkey’s years”
Oh dear. beware of that one.
Firstly because it used to be donkeys’ EARS and secondly because donkeys is a derogatory term applied by Jersey islanders to Guernsey inhabitants, who wear it as a badge of pride saying its jealousy because they are ‘hung like donkeys’
Political correctness, like Global warming is the cause of everything and found everywhere.
You cant even call a spade, a spade..
Oh what a gay day!
It’s a good one this. A new excuse for the pause:
☺You make a hypothesis (CO2 is the dominant cause of warming in the latter half of the 20thC)
☻You predict what would happen if that hypothesis was correct (Models that say temperature rises smoothly).
☺You watch what happens (the world doesn’t warm as predicted)
☻You realise that your hypothesis has never been correct historically (the world has never warmed smoothly as the models predict
Therefore – the predictive power of the hypothesis is unchanged by observation!
Of course, the hypothesis is still worthless when it comes to reflecting reality but… it is still useful because it will be just as unrealistic in the future – after a century or two – as it is now.
Brilliant. It is good to keep things light-hearted.
Cesium 350:
By your argument, people should ignore hurricane warnings because the models not only disagree with each other, but they show the hurricane following paths that aren’t exactly the path that the actual hurricane ended up taking.
Ah! The binary logic of the true warmist! The postmodern approach to Truth.
If you can’t say for sure that anything is absolutely True, then all things are equally lies! And any lie is as good as any other!
Hurricane warnings are better than random in their correlation with perceived reality.
AGW predictions are, by and large, not.
Statistics is the mathematics of 50 shades of grey.
Argument in black and white terms is simply… Um… Racist?
Catch 22?
justaskin says:
July 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm
” And in order to scientifically “debunk a myth,” one needs to come up with an alternative explanation that makes more sense.”
But in the meantime, we must accept the myth as fact and beyond question?????
Eamon.
cesium62 says:
July 31, 2014 at 1:11 am
”The fact that denialists can’t seem to agree on the length of “the pause” from one day to the next lends support to the fact that “the pause” is not a real feature.”
So what does it tell us about the Alarmists who can’t agree on an explanation/ reason/ excuse, for this ”imagined” Pause?
Whatever it’s duration, it’s a reality acknowledged even by the Alarmists. No denying it.
Eamon.
The pattern of bizarre excuses is EXACTLY the pattern of behavior used by pathological LIARS. We have all had to deal with them-a lie, to support a lie, to support a lie. The excuses become crazier and crazier – all to hide the truth that they lied from pretty well the beginning. Their whole case is based on trust. Once you spot a single lie, you realize the whole lot is a load of rubbish and you have been scammed. Some of these deceivers, eg J. Edgar Hoover die before the deception is uncovered. In the case of the “desired” outcome of the grand deception, no one will challenge them if they succeed. “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”-Adolf Hitler . Thus, it is OUR duty to expose the grand fraud. We must do all we can to expose the climate lies which are just a means to an end-the end of our society.
cesium62 says:
dbstealy: please provide a specific reference that shows Jones designating 1997 as the official start year and 15 years of no warming from 1997… &blah, blah, etc.
Why should I have to do your homework for you?
Maybe you are not capable of doing a simple search. In that case, see here and here. There’s more. Feel free to do your own search.
Now that you have been educated, I trust you will do the honorable thing and acknowledge that 1997 was the year designated by alarmist Phil Jones as the baseline year for determining if global warming has stopped.
Steve Reddish says:
July 30, 2014 at 10:51 pm
Willis, in re that post of mine, I imagine you asking “How does this hypothesis explain that warming at the end of the LIA precedes the increase of solar activity?”
By the mechanism of tropical ocean cloud production varying in proportion with water temperature, just as you advocate. Tropical ocean temperatures would have slowly dropped during the LIA (due to heat loss at the poles), eventually reducing cloud production. Less tropical cloud cover would then allow more solar radiation (TSI only slightly less than during the MWP) to reach the surface, warming tropical waters, which are then either circulated to the North Atlantic, or in the Pacific, produce an increase in El Ninos.
While solar activity remains low world temps would seesaw around a low temperature limit. During extended periods of high solar activity world temps would seesaw around a high temperature limit. Both limits are determined by cloud production in the tropics, just as you propose.
The sun’s activity level (but, not via TSI changes) determines which limit world temps are approaching at any given time, just as many have proposed. The enormous heat content of the world ocean produces a large lag, sufficient to mask solar variation during individual solar cycles. Only changes in solar activity persisting for multiple solar cycles would change ocean temps, via EVU and solar wind affecting polar air temperatures.
After an extended warming trend, NH winters are additionally tempered by heat escaping from warmer Arctic waters uncovered by sea ice. A downturn in solar activity would affect NH winter temperatures more directly as Arctic sea ice extent increased. Thus the lag between the recent reduction in solar activity and current colder winters.
PS: I am not presenting data since every element of this mechanism is already in the common domain. I am merely suggesting how the elements interplay to produce observed climate and weather. I agree that minor TSI changes are insufficient to cause warm or cold periods, suggesting instead upper atmosphere temperature changes which are observed to correlate with changes in solar activity are sufficient, by changing the rate of cooling of the lower atmosphere at night, and thus changing the rate of cooling of ocean waters at the polar ends of the oceanic circulation cycle where nights are extended during winter.
SR
The global warming was on the IRS’ hard drives.
So as a scientist we make a hypothesis. We collect data a verify the validity of the hypothesis.
So the hypothesis is that as CO2 goes up, temperature rises. 18 years, CO2 has risen and temperature has not. Hypothesis is proven wrong. Seems simple.
Should we work on lowering pollution? Certainly. Who wants to breath that crap? But the scientists need to go ahead and admit the hypothesis was wrong. It is far past the obvious time to do so.
hanson807:
The hypothesis that “as CO2 goes up, temperature rises” sounds to you and to many others as though it is falsifiable but it is not. A hypothesis is falsified if and only if the observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of the events do not match the predicted relative frequencies. For your hypothesis, there are no events or relative frequencies.
logiclogiclogic says:
July 30, 2014 at 10:27 am
+++++++++++++
Well stated!!! Now let’s see if Mosher can understand this Logic!
The argument that logiclogiclogic makes in his July 30 at 10:27 am comment is an equivocation on the polysemic term “science.” By rule, one may not logically draw a conclusion from an equivocation.
Every argument that Terry Oldberg ever makes is balderdash. By rule, one may not logically draw a conclusion from words randomly thrown together.
It’s definitely all the fault of expensive motor cars. 17. AMOC. In my world AMOC is the Aston Martin Owners Club. Don’t think I’ve quite got the hang of this.
I always enjoy reading these sort of lists, and of course the resulting WUWT comment thread. There is an amusing running tally (I forget where exactly ATM) of all the world’s ills which have at some point been blamed on ‘Man-made Global Warming’ – it’s a very long list!
If, as a layman, I was to venture a suggestion for an additon to the above list it would be to do with the 11% increase in planetary greening observed over the satellite record (which is due to CO2 fertilisation).
I’m sure that there are many other factors which are in-play (some of which are on the list), but I reckon the greening of the planet is quite a powerful negative feedback which ‘could’ be attenuating ‘some’ of any warming which ‘might’ otherwise have taken place.
I suppose the reason this one isn’t on the list is either:-
1. Because I’m talking through my hat;
or 2. Because The Team cannot suggest that CO2 ever does any good – after all, it is The Evil Gas Of Doom! (/sarc.)
@ur momisugly Dreadnought
“ There is an amusing running tally (I forget where exactly ATM) of all the world’s ills which have at some point been blamed on ‘Man-made Global Warming’ – it’s a very long list!”
Perhaps here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
30 (the right one): There may now be a decline, but there is, or was, no pause. The early numbers were boiled down, the later ones cooked up to create the apparent warming. By 1999, however, making the “adjustments” became both riskier and more difficult, so the numbers became more consistent with measurement – hence the apparent pause.
richardscourtney (Aug. 1 at 2:05 am):
You make a pair of assertions but these assertions do not rise to the level of an argument. If you’d like to make an argument, please present it for critical review. What are the premises to this argument, what is the conclusion from it, why are the premises true and by what logical principle does the conclusion follow from these premises?
Terry Oldberg:
re your post at August 1, 2014 at 9:59 am.
In my post at August 1, 2014 at 2:05 am I paraphrased your post at July 31, 2014 at 9:39 pm. If you think my comment was flawed then your post was, too. Indeed, that was my point: you only post gobbledeygook. At least this time you did not claim you have a method to obtain “information from the future”.
Thankyou for offering me this opportunity to iterate my warning for ‘newbies’ reading this thread who may be reading your twaddle for the first time.
Richard
richardscourtney:
I gather from your silence that you have no argument to make in reference to the assertions that you make your post of Aug. 1 at 2:05 am. Do you have an argument to make in reference to the assertions that you make in your post of Aug. 1 at 2:37 pm?
Friends:
If any of you require further warning about the irrational rubbish posted by Oldberg, I draw your attention to his response to my post at August 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm being to claim I was”silent”.
Richard
richardscourtney:
I gather from your continuing silence in response to my requests that your appeals be framed as arguments that you are unwilling or unable to do so. Instead, you intend to continue to use this blog to make emotional appeals. While this may work for you, it does not work for the purposes of the scientific community. Were posts in this blog subjected to the ordinary standards of the peer-review system, your personal attacks would not be published here for they would be recognized as illogical, irrelevant and defamatory.
fobdangerclose says:
July 30, 2014 at 8:05 am
Real world facts can not be controled by liars.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/what-a-coincidence/