The global warming cure

Guest fiction by Sheldon Walker

clip_image002

Graph 1

Imagine that scientists have developed a cure for global warming. But there is a catch. The cure can only be used one time, and it will only last for 10 years.

Warning: the following story is not real. It is fiction, science fiction. However, most of the “facts” that are presented here are completely true. See if you can identify fact from fiction.

There are many questions. Should we use the cure now? Should we delay using the cure until global warming gets worse? Is the cure dangerous? Does the cure have side-effects?

Scientists present the facts to the citizens of Earth.

  • The average global warming rate from 1970 to 2017 was about 1.80 degrees Celsius per century.
  • The 95% confidence interval for the average global warming rate was about 1.50 to 2.10 degrees Celsius per century (calculated using a linear regression with a correction for autocorrelation).
  • The 95% confidence interval does not include zero, so the average global warming rate is statistically significant.
  • As well as being statistically significant, the average global warming rate is significant in other ways. We can see the effects of global warming in the real world. It is changing the environment in a number of ways.
  • The cure will make the average global warming rate equal to about zero degrees Celsius per century, for 10 years.
  • The citizens of Earth are warned that to reduce the average global warming rate from 1.80 to 0.00 degrees Celsius per century, will not be easy. They must be prepared for some hardships. Scientists will be dealing with a new technology, which must be powerful to overcome the significant effects of global warming. But scientists are generally optimistic that the cure can be implemented.

Is this cure a waste of time? Some people believe that the cure is just putting off the inevitable. Others believe that it will give us a 10 year window to develop a different cure.

A citizen in the crowd shouts out a question, “Can you give us any idea what we are going to face, when the cure is implemented?”.

A scientist from the back of the stage steps forward, and says “As a matter of fact, we can”.

The crowd goes completely quiet, and waits for the scientist to speak.

The scientist starts speaking, “from about 2002 to 2012, there was a phenomenon on the Earth known as ‘The Slowdown’. It resulted in an average global warming rate of about zero degrees Celsius per century for 10 years. Almost exactly the same as the cure. Many of the people here will have lived through ‘The Slowdown’. Most people probably didn’t even realise that it was happening. Some people deliberately ignored ‘The Slowdown’. Several groups of people, known as ‘Warmists’ and ‘Alarmists’, tried to pretend that there was no ‘Slowdown’. I guess that the people in those groups must be feeling pretty stupid now.

____________________

As I said at the start of this story, most of the “facts” that are presented in this story are completely true. The existance of the global warming cure is the only fiction in the story. All of the information about ‘The Slowdown’ is true.

If you look at Graph 1 (at the top of this story), then you will see ‘The Slowdown’. The blue line is the GISTEMP global monthly temperature series. The red line is a LOESS Smooth of the GISTEMP data. It uses a local regression size of 10 years to do the smoothing.

The red line looks flat from about 2004 to 2011. Flat means a warming rate of close to zero degrees Celsius per century. I usually claim that the slowdown went from 2002 to 2012. The reason that the LOESS Smooth is not flat for that entire date interval, is that it uses a local regression which includes data to the left and right of the point being plotted. So that when the point for 2002 is plotted, it is calculating a regression over 1998 to 2007.

If you plot a linear regression just over the date interval from 2002 to 2012, then you will get a warming rate of close to zero degrees Celsius per century, for the 10 year period. I wish that we had a “cure” that powerful.

Advertisements

279 thoughts on “The global warming cure

      • Firstly I would not base any claims on “a smooth”. What is that supposed to mean? It is not scientific. Smoothing is a visual effect. Scientists and engineers apply filters and then specify what the filter is supposed to do, eg. remove high frequencies and keep lower frequency changes.

        If you look at what the LOESS filter does it treats the end sections differently to the bulk of the data in order to get results which go to the end of the data. With lengthy windows 10 years on such short data that means that middle is getting a different treatment to the rest. And this is just the bit which is showing a different result. Is that part of the reason, I don’t know, but it is very poor data processing.

        So that when the point for 2002 is plotted, it is calculating a regression over 1998 to 2007. ….. It uses a local regression size of 10 years to do the smoothing.

        Really ? How does it do that for the last year of the data : where it still produces a result?

        You can not even define the frequency response of this “filter” since it is not consistent across the span of the data. How can you be sure that what you see is not due to artefacts of the varying performance of the filter? You can’t.

        I usually claim that the slowdown went from 2002 to 2012.

        Well at least you say it is just a “claim”. When I look at the graph you are clearly stretching it bolster your claim. It is clearly not flat in either 2002 or 2012. Why does the analysis start in 1995, the dataset goes back way further? What is that about?

        Any rigorous filter with a ten year window will not produce a result for the first and last 5 years. If you remove that you really don’t have must left to comment on.

        I agree that there was a pause , probably considerably longer than 5 or 6 years shown by this analysis, if presented honestly.

        I would suggest you learn a little about filters instead of applying arbitrary “smoothers”.

      • Its fitting that GISS Temp is used in fiction posting.

        Greg called GISS Temp data, lol. Nope, with the stations they use in analysis at GISS Temp, the result is output not data.

        GISS is clearly an estimation, there is no data in GISS final product.

      • “It is not scientific. Smoothing is a visual effect.”

        Yup. William M Briggs tried to explain it more forcefully:

        Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!

        http://wmbriggs.com/post/195/

        Words that stick in the memory:

        “Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!”

    • Agree!
      Global Warming is occurring, naturally.
      The Global Warming Pause from 2002 to 2012 occurred, naturally.
      When the Holocene Interglacial ends, Global Cooling will occur, with brutal frigid consequences….. naturally!

    • Victor Borge had an uncle who invented a cure for which there was no disease. Sadly, he later caught the cure and died.

    • …as opposed to never getting one single prediction right

      Has there ever been a “science” that’s persisted like this…when it’s never been right in almost 100 years?

  1. why are you wasting your time worrying about noise? Suppose that the temperature is given by a
    function
    f(t) = alpha * t +noise
    then the trend over any sufficiently short period can be almost arbitrarily large or small (plus both
    positive and negative). All that means is that the noise fluctuates faster than your time period. Given
    random fluctuations you would expect to find ten year slowdowns in temperature fairly regularly. It doesn’t
    mean anything except that we are dealing with a noise system.

    • A system that does not respond to rapid increases in CO2 concentrations. Theory trumped by reality, anyone?

      • the response time is thousands of years due to the thermohaline currents in the deep ocean. There is no reason to expect a rapid response from a system with a 5000 year memory.

      • Geronimo,
        You are arm waving, and looking pretty silly.
        Hansen declared the climate catastrophe had started in 1988.
        We are bombarded by daily claims that the climate catastrophe is happening now.
        So now, after 30 years of failed climate predictions you claim the catastrophe is hiding in the oceans.
        Please continue this great comedy bit.
        Thanks.

      • “There is no reason to expect a rapid response from a system with a 5000 year memory.”
        What happened to the argument of what else could it be? Wasn’t the late 20th C warming due to an event 5000 years ago?

      • Germonio, what if the cause is the thermohaline circulation itself? Then what we are seeing now is perfectly natural and will change as the currents change.

      • IMO this guy is not funny at all, but his shifty eyes, sly grin and “yeah, yeah… that’s it” remind me of climate explainers.

    • Geronimo, ditto on the warming too! Steve McIntyre (a statistician) showed that the procedure used by Mann was such that noise ALWAYS came out a hockey stick! Fancy that.

  2. The solution, not for global warming, but rather catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, is the progressive normalization of selective-child (a.k.a. Pro-Choice), as well as other orientations and behaviors that debase human life and are antithetical to human fitness. The Choice is a wicked solution, to albeit a hard problem.

    • I have no idea what you are babbling about.

      CAGW is a fairy tale backed up by
      absolutely NO SCIENCE.

      Our planet has had more CO2 in the air than today
      for almost all of it’s 4.5 billion years, and there was
      never any runaway warming (CAGW), or else we would
      not be here debating the fairy tale !

      Please tell us what language you write in so we can translate
      your comment. I would guess it is Confusedglish.

  3. I was thinking about the small temperature differences alleged to be from global warming the other day when I drove my daughter the short distance to her school and the air temperature was 2 degrees F different at the school. Yes, we adjusted easily.

  4. We already have a cure for the next three years, and hopefully more. And we saved money on the cure, versus spending more, to get get a bigger problem. The “problem” is not a real problem, it is a theoretical one. No one notices a tenth or two per decade, one way or another. It is a global measurement, and we live in one spot at a time. It is not only insignificant, it is undetectable by a single individual.

      • Regardless of the actual time used, it certainly appears to indicate that temperature has DECLINED over the same time period that CO2 concentration in the air has INCREASED. Where’s your Greenhouse Theory (sorry, should be more properly called Conjecture) now?

      • Red you are talking about a few years? You appear to be with Sheldon (and icisil below it seems) – there is no such thing as noise – unless the two lines are straight that disproves everything, including Arrhenius (1896).

  5. Seems like it actually flat-lined to 2014 until the 2014-16 El Nino.

    Meanwhile CO2 did this during the same period

    • To Add El Nino caused a spike in geometric CO2 growth as measured at mauna loa.
      NOAA noted this.

      To cause a spike of a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, the CO2 release by the oceans during El Nino dwarfed human emissions over a decade combined at least.

      Plus human emissions have stalled since 2014.

    • It still comes down fo the scientific facts about the prroperties of the gas co2.

      We need two things, the red blue team in the usa, with lots of govt properganda, the good stuff, plus a epa court case to prove that co2 is a good gas & essential for all life on earth.

      Trumps govt must buy advertasing space in the mainly left wing papers to get the message out.

      The green industry is big business. Only big govt. Can effectly fight it.

      Mje

    • Could all of the people who don’t like GISTEMP please tell me what I should use as an alternative.

      As far as I can see, most of the Land-Ocean temperature series are very similar.

      I have a choice, use GISTEMP and have skeptics not believe me, or use UAH or RSS and have warmists not believe me.

      I cannot make everybody happy. So tell me a temperature series to use.

      • The only temperature record on Earth that is mostly consistent over its entire lifetime and goes back centuries is CET ( Central England Temperatures) kept as ‘hard copy’ record by the MET office.
        Given all the fiddling, statistical manipulation of every other series of ‘numbers’ that advertise themselves as temperature records it can justifiably be used as the only global record.
        No anomalous anomalies required.

      • Because GISS temp has no data in its final product.

        Are you aware of the coverage of stations used on their analysis Sheldon? The smearing? C’mon.

        Take all data sets and average them, balloon sat & surface at least.

      • GISS also consistently adjust the monthlies from 1880 onwards every year, hundreds of adjustments are made every year

      • and lets not forget the “data” GISS uses has been raped and pillaged before they even get it.

        Any problems highlighted on the DATA, Schmidt at GISS promptly and consistently points people to NOAA for any raised issues. More than once I read a tweet from Schmidt that was more or less a tacit admission he thinks NOAA’s adjustments are bollocks

      • The only reasonable data is UAH 6.0. It is the only data that covers 95% of the planet and also avoids UHI and extremely poor areal coverage from the oceans. It’s true that warmists don’t like it. So what.

        The only other possibility is hadsst3 but like I said the areal coverage of the oceans is poor.

      • The only temperature record on Earth that is mostly consistent over its entire lifetime and goes back centuries is CET

        Much as I love the CET, the idea that it is more reliable and less “manipulated” than every global series is questionable to say the least. But if you insist on using it as a proxy for global temperatures, note that from 1975 to present it shows warming at the rate of 2.28C / century, somewhat faster than GISTEMP.

        Over the last 10 years the rate has shot up to 8.86C / century, but of course that’s just noise.

      • Sorry, I messed up the blockquote in that previous comment. The first paragraph is quoting jim, the rest is my response.

        [Fixed. -mod]

      • Sheldon Walker writes,

        “I have a choice, use GISTEMP and have skeptics not believe me, or use UAH or RSS and have warmists not believe me.”

        The difference is that GISS has been adjusted so many times, that the cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s have changed from a .50 cooling trend to zero trend. Their adjustments are not properly validated.

        Meanwhile UAH changes from one version to another are documented and presented in a science publication. Aside from any possible small corrections, it is accepted.

      • Meanwhile UAH changes from one version to another are documented and presented in a science publication. Aside from any possible small corrections, it is accepted.

        As are GISS and RSS changes.

      • Bellman, did you bother to notice how GISS/NOAA adjust OVER and OVER…….., While UAH and RSS doesn’t?

        No they don’t publish their reasons in a paper or you would have pointed it out. Satellite data are not adjusted over and over.

        That is the crucial difference you miss.

      • Sunsettommy wrote: “Satellite data are not adjusted over and over.”

        UAH is on version 6.0. That qualifies as over and over.

      • Martin,

        Now you are being dishonest since the “adjustments” for UAH have little to do the data themselves but on other factors that effect the data which they explained in the paper for Version 6.0

        GISS adjust the adjusted data over and over, not even close to the original raw data anymore.

        It is clear you didn’t look at the link I gave you, since GISS clearly has no credible justification to eliminate the well known cooling trend of about .5C from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, which is now about zero today. They DOUBLED the warming trend from 1880 in their latest changes.

        The obvious eludes you apparently.

      • Sunsettommy wrote: “Now you are being dishonest since the “adjustments” for UAH have little to do the data themselves but on other factors that effect the data which they explained in the paper for Version 6.0”

        Now you are accusing me of being dishonest, but did you inform your readers that satellites don’t even measure temperature? They don’t. The temperature data is computed from the data recorded by the satellites using models, and those models have been adjusted many times, which means the temperature data they compute has been adjusted many times. So if one of us is being dishonest, it’s not me.

      • See how Martin tries to mislead by suggesting that I am talking about temperature data when I simply said DATA only.

        Meanwhile I made the point that their adjustments are not on the data themselves (which Martin never shows to be wrong) as Dr. Spenser over the years publish what the adjustments are and why they made them: Here is a simple list from Wikipedia showing the adjustments:

        UAH version Main adjustment Trend correction Year

        A Simple bias correction 1992

        B Linear diurnal drift correction -0.03 1994

        the rest of the listed changes are in the link,

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

        For the most part they are corrections of Satellites situation they are in, the changes of their orbits, the aging status of their sensors and so on.

        ” The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay.”

        Martin stated,

        “Now you are accusing me of being dishonest, but did you inform your readers that satellites don’t even measure temperature? They don’t. The temperature data is computed from the data recorded by the satellites using models, and those models have been adjusted many times, which means the temperature data they compute has been adjusted many times. So if one of us is being dishonest, it’s not me.”

        He has responded to what I wrote about UAH satellite:

        “Now you are being dishonest since the “adjustments” for UAH have little to do the data themselves but on other factors that effect the data which they explained in the paper for Version 6.0″

        Here is the published paper on Version 6.0 by Dr. Spencer:

        Abstract 3

        Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset represents an

        extensive revision of the procedures employed in previous versions of the UAH datasets. The

        two most significant results from an end-user perspective are (1) a decrease in the global-average

        lower tropospheric temperature (LT) trend from +0.14 C/decade to +0.11 C/decade (Jan. 1979

        through Dec. 2015); and (2) the geographic distribution of the LT trends, including higher spatial

        resolution, owing to a new method for computing LT. We describe the major changes in

        processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging which uses all of

        the footprint data yet eliminates the need for limb correction; a new multi-channel (rather than

        multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product which

        requires an additional tropopause (TP) channel to be used; and a new empirical method for

        diurnal drift correction. We show results for LT, the mid-troposphere (MT, from

        MSU2/AMSU5), and lower stratosphere (LS, from MSU4/AMSU9). A 0.03 C/decade reduction

        in the global LT trend from the Version 5.6 product is partly due to lesser sensitivity of the new

        LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.01 C/decade), with the remainder of the reduction

        (0.02 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT

        calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.”

        and,

        “The global coverage by polar-orbiting satellites provides an attractive vantage point from

        which to monitor climate variability and change. Average air temperature over relatively deep

        atmospheric layers can be monitored, with minimum cloud contamination, using passive

        microwave radiometers operating in the 50-60 GHz range which measure thermal microwave

        emission from molecular oxygen that is proportional to temperature. The temperature of such

        bulk atmospheric layers relate directly to heat content and thus to the rate at which heat may be

        accumulating in the atmosphere due to enhanced greenhouse gas forcing and other climate

        changes

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf

        You are quickly being exposed as a troll here since once again you fail to answer honestly. You never showed where I was wrong either, just a word game is what you are now playing.

        Meanwhile notice that Martin suddenly drop the GISS TEMPERATURE adjustments that are shown to be inappropriate manipulations to create a huge false warming trend, that the RAW data never shows. I think I know why……………….

      • Sunsettomy wrote: “Meanwhile notice that Martin suddenly drop the GISS TEMPERATURE adjustments that are shown to be inappropriate manipulations to create a huge false warming trend, that the RAW data never shows. I think I know why…”

        I’ll ask you again: If you have any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is fraudulent or incorrect, just post the evidence. So far, you are doing everything you can to avoid providing any evidence. It’s easy for you to do another Gish Gallup like the one you did above, but the facts remains: Satellites don’t measure temperature. The computer models that compute temperature from the satellite radiance data have been adjusted many times, because they were wrong. That means the temperature data inferred from the satellite data have been adjusted many times. In fact, more times than the actual surface thermometer data. And I think nobody gets to review Spencer’s computer models. Yes?

        If you have any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is fraudulent or incorrect, just post the evidence.

      • Sunsettommy wrote: “Meanwhile I made the point that their adjustments are not on the data themselves (which Martin never shows to be wrong) .

        You are doing a Gish Gallup, tommy. First, the satellite data are adjusted. They have to be adjusted for orbital changes, instrument degradation, and so on. Second, the satellite data are not used directly, because they are not temperatures. Temperature data can only be inferred from the satellite data using a complicated computer model, which you don’t trust when it is a peer-reviewed climate model but you do trust when it is Spencer’s black box temperature computation model. Third, the UAH dataset, which you accept, and the RSS dataset, which you reject, both begin with the same satellite dataset. They then use different, proprietary computer models to compute their respective temperature datasets. Their datasets disagree with each other, by quite a lot. However, the RSS dataset agrees with all the surface temperature datasets, and the UAH dataset does not. Yet you demand that climate science be based on the UAH dataset and only the UAH dataset. You demand that all the other datasets be rejected, and that only your cherrypicked UAH dataset is the one true dataset. And you hold this position despite all the scientific evidence being against you. This is the current summary of all the physics and chemistry you are rejecting so that you can hold on to your belief that UAH TLT version 6.0 is the one true temperature dataset: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

        Don’t use the Gish Gallup.

  6. Nah. You have all got it all wrong. You have no VISION. You must follow the trail of Elon Musk! Look to the Future!! Get on the rocket ship and GO!

    Why do you think NASA is spending so much effort to find a twin to Earth, not just in the Goldilocks zone, but with the same compounds signature in its atmosphere?

    You poor souls have no vision! Space is the solution! Once humans have left the planet, warming will become a non-issue!

    /snrc

  7. OK, it is a story. You tell us about it.

    The existance of the global warming cure is the only fiction in the story.

    Then you say:

    As well as being statistically significant, the average global warming rate is significant in other ways. We can see the effects of global warming in the real world. It is changing the environment in a number of ways.

    How can you see the effects of global warming in the real world? How is the environment changing?
    Can anybody tell me what is changing in the real world due to warming.
    More hurricanes?
    More floods?
    More droughts?
    Sea level rising to flood our coastal cities?
    Dead polar bears?
    Anything?

    Sheldon Walker writes fiction. GISSTEMP indeed!

    • TonyL,
      I think that my comment “We can see the effects of global warming in the real world. It is changing the environment in a number of ways.” can be justified.
      How about
      – temperature changes
      – seasons starting at different times
      – birds migrating at different times
      – changes to the Great Barrier Reef
      – etc

      – I personally don’t believe that there has been any significant change in hurricanes,
      – There may be small changes in flooding and droughts (I am not an expert, so I am not sure).
      – Sea level has been rising for a long, long time. Long before AGW. AGW may have increased it a bit, but we are still talking millimetres per year.
      – Polar bears are doing much better than warmists claim. With possibly 50,000 polar bears, you have to expect one to die occasionally.

      So when you say “Sheldon Walker writes fiction”, is that a compliment?
      Sheldon Walker also writes facts.

      If not GISTEMP, then what?
      If I use GISTEMP, then skeptics won’t believe me.
      If I use UAH or RSS, then warmists won’t believe me.
      In general, I am trying to convince warmists, since skeptics already know what is right (you didn’t see me write that, ok).

      • A reasonable response deserved a reply.
        – temperature changes
        Here in the US, the warmest time was the mid 1930s. After that, it cooled for over three decades until the 1970s, to levels seen ~1900-1920. Then it warmed again. The warm 1930s and the cooling to the 1970s have been conveniently removed from GISSTEMP. The progressive changes to the historical record By GISS are well known. Australia has similar issues with their record as amply shown here and at Jo Nova’s site.

        – seasons starting at different times
        Planting times have not changed. USDA (US Department of Agriculture) hardiness zones have changed +5.0 deg F. across the US since 1990! Not even remotely plausible. USDA is fully in the tank with CAGW. Heaven help any gardener who relies on the new USDA zone charts. More broadly, the US wheat belt and corn belt in the midwest are right where they always have been. If the new USDA chart was right, planting times would have changed, but they have not.

        – birds migrating at different times
        Much ink has been spilled about CAGW affecting bird migration. Always from the usual alarmist sources. Like hurricanes and tornadoes, the claims hold up right until you examine the data.

        – changes to the Great Barrier Reefs
        The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has been called out for their alarmism. The CAGW party is not all fun and games. A lot of people make their living off the reef. The alarmist message apparently cut deeply into tourism in some areas and caused some real hardship. These games have consequences.

        “If I use GISTEMP, then skeptics won’t believe me.”
        “If I use UAH or RSS, then warmists won’t believe me.”

        I see your point. This is a problem and the debate is polarized.
        More broadly, I see where you are coming from. There is *so much* alarmist stuff out there, it is almost impossible not to accept that at least some of it must be real. Sorting out all the claims as fact or fiction is more than a full time job, and most of us have better things to do.
        All in all, you take a fair enough position, although the alarmists and skeptics can and will argue the details forever.

      • As I have said above, use CET, its the only reliable, consistent and generally unabused temperature record out there.

      • Sheldon, I agree with you, conditionally… Much of this is apocryphal, but (forgive me for taking these out of order, I’m stream-of-consciousness responding as they occur to me)… I recall reading in the Little House On The Prairie books, that in upstate New York (the series became popular with the book on living in Ohio, but prior to that the Ingalls family lived in upstate New York, I read all of the books, not just the popular ones) it was time to cut ice for the icehouse when a bucket of water thrown into the air hit the ground as ice. At that time, such a condition occurred virtually every year. Today, not so much. So this addresses the “-temperature changes…” though you can’t tell it from the tortured data.

        Birds migrating earlier, or birds altering migration or even ranges at all – I’ll give you that one, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120223142642.htm, though the sample size, both number of species and years in the study, may be too small.

        -Changes in growing season… the EPA seems to agree with you, though I have not taken a dive in the data, so it could be bollocks https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season

        -Great Barrier Reef: It has taken quite a hit https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/australia/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching.html but is it dead yet? Probably not: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/08/the-great-barrier-reef-is-it-dead-yet/ and in any event, this proves it has happened before and the reef has recovered.

        And as for the rest of that, I agree, hurricanes “Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend…” https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/09/14/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-science-of-hurricanes/ floods, droughts, (I’ll leave those last 2 for others to research) … no increase found in the data (though the Warmunist crowd has shown, with the torturing of temperature records, that all data is malleable), polar bears are doing quite nicely thank you very much, and while sea level has been rising for at least 300 years, the rate of the rise may actually be in decline https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/04/the-fantasy-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-just-got-hosed/

        So in summary, Sheldon knows whereof he speaks, don’t cut him short too quick. The thing is, and has been my point ever since I first heard of it, how much is attributable to human activity? And how much of it can we correct? Emissions (if they have anything at all to do with climate anyway) once emitted can hardly be vacuumed up and pretend they never existed, can they? So IF there is climate change, all we can do is figure out how to adapt. And based on the last 20 years, not much of that is necessary, is it?

      • TonyL said: “– birds migrating at different times
        Much ink has been spilled about CAGW affecting bird migration. Always from the usual alarmist sources. Like hurricanes and tornadoes, the claims hold up right until you examine the data.”

        Can you provide a link with that refutation?

  8. Sheldon: Rising GHGs slow down the rate at which the atmosphere radiatively cools to space. Conservation of energy demands that must cause warming somewhere on the planet. And that will produce other changes in the net flux at the TOA. The planet will warm until the net imbalance is zero and a new steady state GMST exists.

    The slowdown in warming could have been caused by a temporary increase in the chaotic ocean currents that exchange heat between the deep ocean and surface. In chaotic systems, this is called internal variability or unforced variability or NOISE. Or, it could have been caused by a change in the radiative flux across the TOA – say by a less active sun, volcanic aerosols (or possibly more clouds). That would be forced variability, naturally forced not anthropogenically forced. We have no evidence that the slowdown can be accounted for by natural variability, but our data on clouds is highly dubious.

    El Nino is associated with a slowing of heat exchange with the deep ocean: a slowing of upwelling off equatorial South American and a slowing of downwelling in the Western Pacific Warm Pool. El Ninos typically rise in roughly a half year (and fall in another half year), but their size and rate (0.4 K in your graph, 0.8 K/yr rise) shows that slow downs in upwelling and downwelling could easily have negated the roughly 0.02 K/yr of warming expected during the slowdown.

    ARGO came online during the slowdown and showed that the ocean as a whole warmed during the slowdown, but the top layer of ocean experienced less warming. So the slowdown appears to have been caused by a change in heat flux in the ocean, not across the TOA.

    We don’t know how to speed up the exchange of heat between the deep ocean and the surface, so we can’t use that as a permanent cure for rising GHGs. Perhaps such a change will occur for most of this century and reduce warming. Perhaps such a change can last for centuries and was responsible for the LIA. (So far, solar and volcanic explanation have been proposed, but don’t appear to be adequate.) We can’t count on unforced variability to cure GW.

    We can (and probably will) cure global warming by placing aerosols in the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming SWR.

    • Hi Frank,
      your comment was well written, and I agree with almost everything that you said.

      I am happy to accept that “The Slowdown” was caused by ocean cycles.

      • You guys are promoting a religion The religion of global warming. There are no valid stats nor any valid theory to support that CO2 absorbs infrared(IR) at the frequencies that the IR is emitted by the surface of the earth. IT DOES NOT. CO2 only absorbs the IR emitted frequencies at temperatures of -80C The only possible place the CO2 could do this is in the Antarctic. All studies have shown that the Antarctic is not warming. Also Before NASA stopped measuring water vapour in 2009, all measurements did not show any increase in water vapour in the atmosphere. Global warming is a flawed concept and can be shown to be false on any level you want to talk about. Skeptics like me relish the debate but warmists never will debate the science cause the science is not there.

      • Sheldon wrote: “I am happy to accept that “The Slowdown” was caused by ocean cycles.”

        Great. What does this tell us about climate change caused by rising GHGs? ie, What is the significant of this slowdown if we have identified the right cause.

      • I got a story . .

        Imagine if you will, that (roughly) 97% of scientists were convinced that human CO2 emissions were going to cause catastrophic warming effects, and all the nations of the world agreed it was a grave threat. And there were promising “cures” in the way of aerosols to be sprayed high in the atmosphere, and the threat was declared the number one threat to American national security . . but the promising “cures” were not used . . not so much as tested.

        Lots’ of people in America swore they saw stuff being sprayed up there, but it was just a strange coincidence . . that this warming was the number one national security threat, and the promising “cures” involved spraying things up there, and many people sorta hallucinated that very thing going on . . but it wasn’t, because all the people in positions of authority sort of spaced out, and just didn’t.

      • Actually, it is likely the strong warming in the late 20th century was caused by ocean cycles (+PDO and +AMO). The slowdown happened when they went neutral (-PDO and +AMO). Expert cooling to start in a few years when the AMO goes negative too. This is all on top of the millennial cycle which is also related to the oceans (THC speed). When this will change is difficult to assess.

        The net is it leaves very little room for GHGs to have much effect. This is probably due to negative water vapor feedback at high altitudes. This was seen in the data as described by Miskolczi’s work and Gero/Turner 2011.

      • Alan Tomalty: “You guys are promoting a religion The religion of global warming. There are no valid stats …”

        On a planet where an El Nino event can warm temperature 0.4 K in one half a year (0.8 K/yr) because of the unforced variability that exists in our weather and climate, it is simple-minded to look for proof of the effects of rising CO2 in short term temperature records that are have been warming at a rate of 0.015-0.020 K/yr for nearly the last 50 years. It is idiotic to look at much shorter periods due to chaotic fluctuations

        Alan continued: “[Nor] any valid theory to support that CO2 absorbs infrared(IR) at the frequencies that the IR is emitted by the surface of the earth. IT DOES NOT.”

        Quantum mechanics is a carefully validated theory that describes the interaction between CO2 (and other GHGs) and the thermal IR emitted by the surface of the Earth.

        You can see an infrared spectrum of the Earth taken from space below. The effect of CO2 is obviously. Now there is no need to mislead others


        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/97JE00637/asset/jgre741.pdf;jsessionid=5E6B13EE58FD7757D58B0A73E3D407FC.f02t01?v=1&t=jdk2xm2l&s=d515043802042548fc2f4a137075f233ea5c3b17

        Alan continued: CO2 only absorbs the IR emitted frequencies at temperatures of -80C The only possible place the CO2 could do this is in the Antarctic.

        You can take an infrared spectrum of CO2 in the laboratory at room temperature with an ordinary spectrometer. There are plenty of spectra on the internet.

        Alan wrote: “Global warming is a flawed concept and can be shown to be false on any level you want to talk about. Skeptics like me relish the debate but warmists never will debate the science cause the science is not there.”

        People like you hurt the skeptical cause because you are the source of such nonsense. No warmist would debate because you spout a bunch of nonsense. It is a natural reaction for humans to reject things that conflict with deeply held belief and to persist in believing any evidence that supports you position. However, the Internet is full of wrong information and you can find “evidence” to support anything – even the existence of Podestra’s child sex ring at the Cosmic Ping Pong Pizzeria in DC. However, the is a science blog. Readers are supposed to know how to tell science from pseudo-science and fake news. Since you don’t, consider asking questions about what evidence exists.

    • Frank is right. Sheldon, here is what the temperature change looks like when you remove the variations (noise) from ENSO, volcanoes, and solar variation: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/2017-temperature-summary/ And here is a summary of the trends: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/global-warming-rates-by-request/

      And here is the umpteenth explanation that global warming is the relentless trend, not the noise: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/global-warming-the-relentless-trend/

      • Hi Tom,
        we posted at about the same time, and you can see from my reply to Frank that I agree with almost everything that he said.
        I respect Tamino’s statistical expertise, but I have to take him in small doses.
        When you adjust a temperature series for ENSO, volcanoes, and solar radiation, are you removing their effects, or adding your own prejudices. You need to have God like powers to be able to do this correctly. What if the volcanic eruption wasn’t a normal one?

        You may have missed my comment about Tamino’s relentless trend, in my article called “A possible compromise on global warming slowdowns and pauses”. Here is a quote:

        <<>>

        Tamino writes some poetic nonsense about the recent warm temperatures. In case you don’t know what “a highest high born” is, it is referring to the record high temperature in 2016.

        […, a highest high born of the unholy marriage of extreme fluctuation and relentless trend.]

        What Tamino fails to mention, is that the “unholy” marriage is between a human and a mouse. The mouse’s name is “relentless trend”, and the human’s name is “extreme fluctuation”. Tamino would like you to think that the mouse and the human are equal partners in the marriage. But reality proves that they are not.

        <<>>

      • Sheldon, it is obvious you have not bothered to read the paper linked from that post by Tamino—the paper that describes the method by which those effects were removed. No god-like powers required. Just math. Not even slightly contentious math. Your accusations from ignorance would get you an F if you were one of my graduate statistics students. Or one of my undergrads. Or even a high school student. Read the assignment. Do the homework. Argue from knowledge, not profound ignorance.

      • Hi Tom,
        it is the weekend, and I just handed in my science fiction story. No homework until next week.
        I admit that I didn’t study the first 2 Tamino articles that you mentioned. I glanced at them, and realised that I had read them when they first came out. I wrote an article for WattsUpWithThat about the 3rd Tamino article, so I think that I understand that one quite well.
        From your reaction, I assume that you are a Tamino fan. Am I right?
        I looked back at the first 2 Tamino articles, and even looked at the link to Foster & Rahmstorf.
        “Global Warming Rates (by request)” sounds too much like you can request the Global Warming Rate that you want, and Tamino will produce it for you. I know that it doesn’t really mean that (or does it? :).
        Describing the method used to adjust the temperature series for ENSO, volcanoes, and solar radiation, does not give the full picture. They rely on various indexes (the multivariate el Niño index or MEI, the aerosol optical thickness data from Sato et al, and total solar irradiance (TSI) data from Fröhlich). Are these indexes accurate? I don’t know. Many people question the accuracy of the various temperature series. Are we adjusting garbage temperature anomalies with garbage indexes?
        I like my temperature series to be as unadulterated as possible. I can feel more confident about them that way
        You may be interested in some extra-curricular study that I am doing. I am studying the “Multiple Tamino Problem” (this can apply to Time and Space). Imagine that Tamino does a study correcting a temperature series for ENSO, volcanoes, and solar radiation. He finds a result which supports warmists, and publishes his results. Six months later Tamino does another study correcting a temperature series for ENSO, volcanoes, and solar radiation. This time he finds a result which supports skeptics. Does he publish his result? If he doesn’t publish these results, nobody will know. So he doesn’t risk being exposed.
        Because of the “Multiple Tamino Problem”, all of Tamino’s results must be divided by 2. It is the only fair way of solving this problem.
        .

      • Sheldon, many people in comments to your posts on WUWT and at Open Mind have explained this to you, but I’ll try again. When people say “there is inadequate evidence to support the existence of a slowdown in global warming,” what they mean, and what they endlessly explain, is that the long-term warming trend has been very (not perfectly) consistent, where “long-term trend” means the trend “averaged” across the short-term variations, which are called “noise” in contrast to the “trend.”

        Any mathematical smoothing, including the LOESS smoothing you did for this post, is a reduction of the noise–“averaging” out the noise–to reveal the trend. There is an infinite number of ways to reduce the noise to reveal the trend. Your LOESS procedure reduces all sources of noise both known and unknown, but due to its lack of any external information about any of the sources of the noise, it is a blunt instrument. In contrast, Tamino’s approach that I linked for you, smooths out specifically, only, and intentionally only the three particular types of noise from ENSO, volcanoes, and sun. Tamino’s approach uses external sources of information about those types of noise, so it is more powerful in reducing those three particular types of noise. Tamino’s approach leaves untouched all the other sources of noise. But then applying smoothing (e.g., LOESS) to Tamino’s results, reduces all other sources of noise, just as your LOESS smooth did.

      • No, Sheldon, I am not a “Tamino fan.” I am a PhD-trained scientific research methodologist with heavy emphasis on quantitative methods. Versus you, who is proud that you have not even bothered to try to understand the method of Foster and Rahmstorf. Revel in your ignorance.

      • Mr Dayton Phd etc etc, what a crock of sh*t.
        Use real temperature data, not ‘tamino’ anomalous anomalies’ . Use a proper temperature series ( CET).
        Now find the ‘relentless trend’.

      • Hi Tom,
        I sense that you are slightly annoyed with me. That’s fine, I can be an annoying person (I have an odd sense of humour, a bit like Monty Python – hence the Multiple Tamino Problem). But I am a genuine person, and my attempt to find out what is happening with AGW is sincere.

        You say that many people tell me that there is inadequate evidence to support the existence of a slowdown in global warming. Yes, they do. Many people also tell me to believe in God. And some of them are priests, who are the “experts” in religion. Do I listen to them? Yes, I do. But then I make up my own mind.

        Notice that many of the people who tell me that there is inadequate evidence to support the existence of a slowdown in global warming, are warmists. They have a prejudice, which I take into account. They are supporting their favourite soccer club, and they refuse to believe that their goalie isn’t the best in the world. So the issue of trust comes into who I believe.

        Do you honestly expect me to believe that noise (randomness) caused a 10 year interval with a warming rate of zero degrees Celsius per century. And of course, it did this while fighting an average warming rate if 1.8 degrees Celsius per century. I must get me some of that noise, it is magical stuff.

        You may have read elsewhere, how I believe in AGW. I accept all of the basic science. I am not so sure about CAGW, or what we should do about AGW. I have been attacked, often in a nasty way, by warmists, since before 2009. Even though I believe in AGW. It is partly that nastiness that makes me wary of warmists, and question their motives.

        I do not have all of the answers. I am working hard to try and find the answers. I have some skills, but lack other skills. I am not a statistics expert, and have never claimed to be one. I don’t like ignorance. I looked in Foster and Rahmstorf and gave you the names of the indexes that they used (the multivariate el Niño index or MEI, the aerosol optical thickness data from Sato et al, and total solar irradiance (TSI) data from Fröhlich). You have a funny definition of ignorance.

      • “Do you honestly expect me to believe that noise (randomness) caused a 10 year interval with a warming rate of zero degrees Celsius per century. And of course, it did this while fighting an average warming rate if 1.8 degrees Celsius per century.”

        Despite the fact the premise of your question has been torn to shreds, burnt to cinders and then flushed down the toilet by several individuals much smarter than us – if it was not noise what was it?

      • Tom: I’m not a big fan of what Tamino is doing in the posts you link. The temperature perturbation associated with a particular ENSO index is purely a curve fitting exercise. It assumes that the temperature perturbation associated with a particular ENSO state can be predicted by multiplying an ENSO index by a factor determined by linear regression from a modest number of events. That factor contains uncertainty that Tamino ignores. Different ENSO indices provide different factors with different uncertainties. Most involve SSTs in certain regions and perturbation in GMST is what Tamino is trying to project. The whole process has a element of circularity. GMST is rising. There is an ENSO index that involves only atmospheric pressure (Darwin and Tahiti?). That index would be more independent than the one Tamino uses and atmospheric pressure globally is conserved, unlike rising like GMST.

        If Tamino did his analysis of volcanic and solar effects using W/m2, that would be great. An imbalance of 1 W/m2 can produce an initial warming rate of 0.2 K/yr assuming all of the heat goes into a mixed layer of 50 m and the atmosphere. But that analysis quickly gets tricky as warming develops and the planet begins to radiate more energy to space due to rising temperature. That process is controlled by the climate feedback parameter, the reciprocal of climate sensitivity (expressed in K/(W/m2) rather K/doubling). And a significant amount of heat is convected below the mixed layer. So Tamino is treating changes at the TOA due to solar and volcanos as arbitrary indices (like an ENSO), not as power fluxes. He does regressions here too and the coefficients have uncertainty. He doesn’t justify the magnitude of those coefficient in terms of physics.

        If Tamino showed us the sum of all of the uncertainties introduced when removing the influence of these phenomena, the result would still be a trend with significant ambiguity that would admit the possibility of a slowdown. There are now dozens of papers providing possible explanations for a slowdown, so many climate scientists appear to disagree with Tamino’s simplistic analysis. However, the need for an explanation diminished with the adoption of ERSST4. Our ability to accurately measure temperature change over a single decade is limited. Unlike Sheldon, I find decadal change fairly meaningless.

        It might be that the recent state of the PDO or AMO is amplifying or suppressing the effects of ENSO, making Tamino’s corrections too large or too small. I personally prefer to focus on the unadjusted trend and confidence interval for the longest period possible and only draw conclusions from that. CO2 has been rising about 1.5 to 2.0 ppm/yr for the last 40 years (and aerosols have remained stable) producing warming at a rate of 1.5-2.0 K/century.

        In previous comments to earlier posts, I have encouraged Sheldon to pay more attention to noise and the confidence interval around trends. ENSO is noise. The slowdown is “real” (whether caused by noise, ENSO, solar activity or volcanos), but doesn’t require an explanation if it could be due to noise – any of these sources of noise.

      • Tom,
        I have an interesting question for you. It is about noise.
        If you get cooled to zero degrees Celsius, does it matter (in terms of how cold you are), whether you were cooled by a random process or a deterministic process?
        Does the answer to this question have any relevance to the slowdown?
        In other words, if we know that you got cold, do we say that you didn’t get cold, if it was caused by randomness.

      • zazove,
        you said:
        “Despite the fact the premise of your question has been torn to shreds, burnt to cinders and then flushed down the toilet by several individuals much smarter than us – if it was not noise what was it?”

        You have just declared yourself to be “not very smart” (you said “several individuals much smarter than us).
        So how do you know that the people smarter than you, are telling the truth?

        Stupid people tend to believe stupid things, call other intelligent people stupid, and believe stupid experts. And you have declared yourself stupid

      • No Sheldon it is called humility. I am quite adequately intelligent to follow their arguments as well as yours. It seems it is you who cannot follow theirs.

      • Let me correct that. I think you are able to understand their arguments but you are choosing not to due to a fixated bias.

      • Hi zazove,
        You say: “Despite the fact the premise of your question has been torn to shreds, burnt to cinders and then flushed down the toilet by several individuals much smarter than us”

        Telling me that my premise has been torn to threads, does not indicate what was wrong with my premise”.

        Can you tell me in your own words what you think is wrong with my premise? That would at least give me the chance to correct your mistake.

      • zazove,
        you tell me that I am wrong. But you won’t tell me why I am wrong.
        How can I argue against that?
        It is not a matter of being worthy, it is a matter of providing adequate information.

      • @Tom Dayton February 10, 2018 at 7:08 pm “…Tamino’s approach…smooths out specifically, only, and intentionally only the three particular types of noise from ENSO, volcanoes, and sun…” And what about all those forcings (call them “noise” if you like, whatever floats your boat) Tamino (nor you) ever even considered? What about AMO? What about orbital obliquity? What about heat from the combustion of fossil fuels? What about solar wind? What about GCRs? (Svensmark says solar wind and GCRs are directly related, but what if they’re not?) What about solar UV? What about things I haven’t even thought of? i.e., what about not only the known unknowns, but also the unknown unknowns? So, from a high school physics perspective, FAIL!!! Tamino hasn’t proven anything.

      • Jim

        Use real temperature data, not ‘tamino’ anomalous anomalies’ . Use a proper temperature series ( CET).
        Now find the ‘relentless trend’.

        Here you go.

        Trend since 1975 is 2.28 C / century.

        I think you could argue that there has been a slowdown or even a drop in temperatures in CET, but only if you acknowledge that temperatures were increasing much more than global temperatures up to the end of the century. Of course it’s difficult to be sure give the much greater noise in CET than global temperatures.

      • Tamino ignores medium and long term ocean cycles. His analysis is therefore worthless. This is the typical bias I’ve seen from global warming activists. They deny the oceans and their 1000x stronger heat capacity are the real determining factor in climate.

      • @Bellmand.
        “Trend since 1975 is 2.28 C / century.”
        This swarm rather looks like to me that you can rule out, at 95% confidence, that a trend exist at all.

    • Take four decades of warming at a rate of 0.15-0.20 (95% confidence interval) and say something intelligent.

      • Take four decades of warming at a rate of 0.15-0.20 (95% confidence interval) and say something intelligent.

        You say this as though it is reality, but that’s not reality, Frank. That’s a sugar-coated pill at best, and bad medicine, at worst.

        Four decades ! — at 0.80 degrees total ! That’s a pretty small pill. How about four million years, with cycles within a range far greater than this, multiple times over. I know that’s a pretty big pill to swallow, by comparison, but I am confident that you can do it.

      • You need at least 6 decades (preferably more) to account for identified cyclical fluctuations in numerous climatic metrics, Frank.

      • Frank, I guess I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I read it as serious. But I’m thinking now, maybe not. Typing does not convey the subtleties of spoken verbal play sometimes.

      • Robert: I was quite serious when I suggested taking four plus decade of 0.15-0.20 K/decade, and you replied with something intelligent:

        Robert replied: “Four decades ! — at 0.80 degrees total ! That’s a pretty small pill. How about four million years, with cycles within a range far greater than this, multiple times over. I know that’s a pretty big pill to swallow, by comparison, but I am confident that you can do it.”

        Why 4 million years? Why not 400 million years? Or 40,000 years? We think orbital mechanics and continental drift and changing GHGs could have been responsible of change over these long period. I look to the Holocene, the last 10,000 years for guidance. There probably hasn’t been an 0.8 K warming in a half century in the whole Holocene – if you consider that polar amplification means that the change in GMST is probably only half the change in ice cores.

        Furthermore we know that our planet’s hasn’t fully equilibrated in response to the change in GHGs. The current forcing is around 2.5 W/m2, but the current imbalance is only 0.7 W/m2 according to ARGO. So we are about 70% of the way to an new equilibrium of +1.2 degC

        Yes. 0.8 degC isn’t a particularly big quantity and it is somewhat uncertain. But we appear to have the potential to double or triple the total radiative forcing from aGHGs in the next century. That would be a big pill to shallow. Possibly not as big as the pill of doing without fossil fuels sooner than necessary. Which pill should we take?

        The answer may depend on how much richer we expect our descendants to be a century from now. Certainly it would have been idiocy for people in 1918 to spend a lot of taxpayer money back then trying to make our current world a better place.

      • David Fair said: “You need at least 6 decades (preferably more) to account for identified cyclical fluctuations in numerous climatic metrics, Frank.”

        When dealing with chaotic phenomena (not periodic phenomena) like weather and climate, the is no period long enough to ensure that the average behavior you have experienced so far represents the long term average. Even the 100 centuries of stable Holocene climate does not guarantee this.

      • Just a partial response, Frank: Historical fluctuations may give one guidance as to the significance of recent fluctuations.

  9. The scientist starts speaking, “from about 2002 to 2012, there was a phenomenon on the Earth known as ‘The Slowdown’. It resulted in an average global warming rate of about zero degrees Celsius per century for 10 years. Almost exactly the same as the cure.

    Yet the rate of warming since 1970 increased from 1.69C /century to 1.72C / century. Or in other words no statistical difference. How exactly is this evidence of a cure?

  10. The Alarmists already have offered a “cure” for Global Warming, it is called Socialism. And along with socialism, group identity will prevail and individual freedoms will be limited.

    And then when socialism doesn’t work (because it’s an illusory problem), the next cure won’t be offered, it’ll be forced on population.as they’ll have given up the means to resist in the first step. And it’s be called Marxist-Communism, or maybe with a few modifications, just neo-Marxism.

  11. http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

    I came upon the above Absorption study to see what scientists say about the magic of CO2 absorption of infrared rays. Well in the introduction you will see the global warming PR so as to placate the peer review censors. At 1st I thought that this study would refute the concept that CO2 is a poor absorber of IR but the farther you read the more you realize they say no such thing. The last 2 graphs say it all. They indicate that CO2 is a worse absorber than I thought.

    • Great Stuff.
      They built a Near-IR spectrometer out of junk they scrounged up. The first attempt did not work, so they scrounged up some more junk and got things working. Near IR spectra tend to be high-order harmonics of primary absorption bands in the traditional IR range.
      It is an interesting idea they had, though.

    • Alan: The first two sentences of the abstract you cite:

      “This experiment explored the absorptivity of four peaks, 1437, 1955, 2013, and 2060 nanometers, in the near-IR (NIR) absorption spectrum of CO2. The NIR absorption bands in CO2 can contribute up to 30% of the total solar heating in the MESOSPHERE.

      Our climate depends mostly on the troposphere. The mesosphere is irrelevant!. So say something intelligent about the troposphere, one needs to recognize the fact that GHGs both absorb and emit thermal IR. Thermal IR emitted by the surface is modified by absorption and emission of radiation by GHGs. That situation is handled by the Schwarzschild equation.

      It is human nature to latch onto stray facts that confirm our deeply held beliefs: The Earth is flat. The sun goes around the Earth. God is perfect so the orbits of the planets must involve the most perfect geometric shape, circular. The rate of evaporation of oceans is depends on surface temperature. When you encounter evidence that contradicts these beliefs, you reject it and can find somewhere on the Internet that agrees with your belief. This is called confirmation bias. Why else would you pay attention to the above website with a single unpublished paper?

      One answer is that we do live in a highly polarized society that makes far too many of us act like used car salesmen, including the media.

      If you want to know something about how radiation interacts with the atmosphere, I suggest Grant Petty’s textbook for meteorology students (ca $40), A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. There is not a word about climate change in this book.

  12. In 1990, the IPCC predicted 5.0 degrees Celsius of warming per/century for their “business as usual” scenario for CO2 emissions…where is the predicted warming? The “prediction” was real, but the “reality” of said prediction is a “fairy tale”. And don’t go trying to move the goalpost now…you said “+5.0 deg C”.

    • Obviously you have never read what the IPCC actually said in 1990. Its is trivial to look up, so why not do so before shooting your mouth off and confusing others.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

      “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
      global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3 °C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

      The warming rate since 1990 has been 0.17 to 0.20 K/decade with an uncertain of about +/-0.03 K/decade. As this post shows, the rise was not steady. Reality is that observations have been at the optimist end of the IPCC’s projections and about 70% of their central estimate for warming.

      No one has moved the goalposts. The field goal attempt glanced off right post. Do it go through? What we can say is that the IPCCs central estimates have been too high, and their worst case scenarios absurd.

  13. I don’t deny that the average global warming rate from 1970 to 2017 was about 1.80 degrees Celsius per century.

    But I don’t deny that less than 25,000 years ago northern Illinois was covered by more than mile of glacial ice. I don’t deny that less than 12,000 years ago mammoths were flash frozen in Siberia with fresh grasses still in their stomachs. I don’t deny that 1,000 years ago Vikings in Greenland were cropping barley so they could use the grain to make beer. I don’t deny that the Thames River froze solid to such an extent that during 26 separate winters from 1408 until 1814, Londoners were able to hold a Frost Fair on the ice.

    The issue of climate is directed towards an end goal that is not an honest nor a useful one. The future of humanity does NOT depend upon the sea being at a certain level. It does not depend upon the average temperature being a certain number of degrees . It does not depend upon the level of CO2 falling. It does however depend upon the health of the biosphere in which we live and through which we depend to be able to grow our food.

    Not a single one of the concerns being expressed by the advocates of “climate changed” is focused on the health of the overall biosphere iby itself. Where their research report also expresses a policy recommendation, it is always to the end effect of far bigger government, far higher taxes, far less personal freedom, far fewer choices, far more restrictions. It is always a means to an ideological end. That tells me the “social construct” of the research environment. It is always interventionistic, if not socialistic. Their “science” is just as compromised as any ever sponsored by tobacco companies.

  14. So riddle me this, Batman… this whole Anthropogenic Greenhouse effect, are these deep thinkers claiming that human emissions are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, so that the total molar mass of our atmosphere is increasing? In which case, one would/should expect an increase in temperature of the air at sea level because the pressure has increased while the total heat in the air has remained constant (thermodynamics, you know), and there is nothing we could do about that anyway (because thermodynamics, you know), nor should we worry about it since the resulting increase of temperature will produce an increase in the ΔT of the Earth-black body relation, and thus increase heat loss to space and thereby maintaining equilibrium; QED, problem solved. Or is this AGW wetdream claiming that the the total molar mass of the atmosphere remains constant but the CO2 spewings of industrial activity is shifting the percentages of the atmosphere? I want a scientific answer to this, the Ideal Gas Law and comparing that result to that natural-log equation with the unknown-and-unknowable (and possibly mythical) sensitivity constant, even if the actual numbers only support millionths of a degree because those same numbers only produce a thousandth of a millimeter Hg Δair pressure. And then do another column comparing total heat of atmospheric air, which will require data on the amount of moisture in the air at each temperature reading. Where does one find that data? (Could it be that even if the temperature increase is real, it has been accompanied by a decrease in moisture in the air, which produces a Δheat = 0 ?) Don’t tell me it’s a difference that makes no difference, we already know that because we can see from the data (“homogenized” though it may be) that natural variations prior to any anthropogenic atmospheric contribution were just the same, if not more variable, as anything occurring now. Does anyone have time to play around with that? Cuz I sure don’t.

      • Wow, such data exists… where/how do I get that as a table of numbers? I can do the psychrometrics, so I could take the table of global temperature, lay it alongside the table of relative humidity, and produce a time series of global total heat… What do you suppose that graph would look like? Does anyone have time to do that? Willis? Bueller? Bueller? (some of you will get the reference)?

      • http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract;jsessionid=6CC471BF5E0E3A8F605EF06C895B9E87.f04t01

        “Here we consider whether this result holds in other reanalyses and what time scale of climate fluctuation is associated with the negative specific humidity trends. The five reanalyses analyzed here (the older NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 reanalyses and the more modern Japanese Reanalysis (JRA), Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)-interim reanalyses) unanimously agree that specific humidity generally increases in response to short-term climate variations (e.g., El Niño). In response to decadal climate fluctuations, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is unique in showing decreases in tropical mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity as the climate warms. All of the other reanalyses show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long-term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons. First, the newer reanalyses include improvements specifically designed to increase the fidelity of long-term trends in their parameters, so the positive trends found there should be more reliable than in the older reanalyses. Second, all of the reanalyses except the NCEP/NCAR assimilate satellite radiances rather than being solely dependent on radiosonde humidity measurements to constrain upper tropospheric humidity. Third, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis exhibits a large bias in tropical upper tropospheric specific humidity. And finally, we point out that there exists no theoretical support for having a positive short-term water vapor feedback and a negative long-term one.”

      • Toneb, nice example of bias. The establishment climate cartel simply cannot accept reality and once again twist in knots trying to ignore reality. There is theoretical support. They simply deny it.

        Any increase in warming of the surface will lead to enhanced convection which in turn leads to more condensation at higher altitudes. That will lower the amount of water vapor. Denying this kind of basic physics is why climate science is obviously anti-science.

      • This is a fantastic set of graphs! For relative humidity to fall to this extent on a worldwide basis is absolutely incredible. I cannot believe that the tiny observed temperature changes can explain this. Can someone provide a mechanism to explain this? The reduction in humidity contrasted to the tiny increase in temperatures represents a significant reduction in enthalpy. This is not global warming. This is global cooling.

      • “Toneb, nice example of bias. The establishment climate cartel simply cannot accept reality and once again twist in knots trying to ignore reality. There is theoretical support. They simply deny it.”

        Nope the opposite of “bias” as it was a meta-study.
        The one it counters as being an outlier is but one.
        But again that is just bau for “contrarians”.
        There is no “theoretical support”.
        Link to it if there is (other than much further on in warming when surface winds have diminished, and hence evap – not the case now).

        “simply cannot accept reality and once again twist in knots trying to ignore reality”

        You really don’t get the irony of that do you?
        That you think the majority and the knowledgeable (experts) are all wrong and the ideologically motivated know better.
        “they simply deny it” … and it gets even more ironically contrary.
        And of course it is not *you* that “ignores reality”

        You see why it is impossible to communicate with mind-sets such as yours.
        To say that the consensus is science denies anything is bizarre …. it is a ‘consensus’ because no one has found fault, while all the while studying the subject. Like any science.
        It hasn’t been arrived at via a vote.

        The study I linked to involved 5 data sets.
        The ones that you “ignore” number 4.
        The ones I don’t ignore number 4.
        Your ‘reality’ numbers 1.
        my ‘reality’ numbers 4.
        If nothing else just basic common sense.

        Again:
        “We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long-term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons. First, the newer reanalyses include improvements specifically designed to increase the fidelity of long-term trends in their parameters, so the positive trends found there should be more reliable than in the older reanalyses. Second, all of the reanalyses except the NCEP/NCAR assimilate satellite radiances rather than being solely dependent on radiosonde humidity measurements to constrain upper tropospheric humidity. Third, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis exhibits a large bias in tropical upper tropospheric specific humidity. And finally, we point out that THERE EXISTS NO THEORETICAL SUPPORT for having a positive short-term water vapor feedback and a negative long-term one.” (my caps)

  15. Now for fact..

    – Global warming, such as it may be, is way below natural ‘noise’
    – Humanity depends on fossil fuel for its very existence
    – The measures proposed to combat ‘climate change’ are enormously expensive, and will threaten human lives by making energy enormously expensive.
    – The measures proposed to combat ‘climate change’ are almost completely ineffective at reducing CO2.
    – The evidence that global warming is a problem at all is almost non existent.
    – the evidence that CO2 is the driver of such climate change as there is, is flawed.

    The overwhelming outcome of cost benefit analysis is to do nothing – business as usual.

    The overwhelming consensus amongst governments, ‘green energy’ companies and academics is to divert huge quantities of taxpayers money into the pockets of governments, ‘green energy’ companies and academics to produce virtue signalling solutions to faux problems created by scaremongering research studies.

    Quelle surprise.

    • You just expressed your opinions, quite a different thing from stating “facts” which surely require a little supporting evidence. Not that there anything at all wrong with that expressing your opinions. Be aware though that facts don’t change wheras opinions do.

      • Of course your position is typical for New Socialist, raised on the concept that the Truth is a Cultural Construct.

        I hope you never fly in an airliner: Having to trust to the mere opinion of an engineer, that it will, in fact, fly.

        The underlying truth of the world does not, one assumes, change.

        In that you are correct.

        Where your arrogance blinds you, is that you think that you are in possession of it already.

        The evidence is all there. You only have to be able to think for yourself and view it objectively.

        Its a shame that you will never achieve that simple feat. But will always have to rely on someone you hope is an authority, to think for you.

        It is not necessary that most human beings ever grow up beyond looking up to authority figures.

        It is however dangerous when they look up to false ones.

      • “It is not necessary that most human beings ever grow up beyond looking up to authority figures.”

        A splendidly missed point and avoidance of common sense.
        Some authority figures are there merely due to said authority. Others, as in science are not a ‘who’ but an ‘it’.
        To question the ‘who’ or ‘it’ is fine and indeed necessary, but when you decide that the ‘it’ is wrong on the basis of judging the thing it knows better than you as being wrong, whether because (as it must be via that logic) it is incompetent and or fraudulent. Then we have to bring in motivations that must be over-riding common sense.
        I suggest that most, as evidenced here, do not look at the real science but just that viewable on Blogs, (or even that published here, FI, in regard to the deceptive Alley graph) which self evidently have an ‘axe’ to grind. Err, any one/thing coming to it with that attitude are not being ‘scientific’.

      • facts do NOT require supporting evidence, unless hidden or contested.
        Most facts are just self-evident.
        Now YOU, zazove, may claim that such and such are not “facts” but mere opinions, but you must then … just do it! since you didn’t, what you wrote is useless.

      • “you think that you are in possession of it already”

        There: our opinions have differed again. Attacking me personally is not going to persuade me, finding out what my opinions are then refuting them, if you can bothered, may.

        You expressed your obviously closely-held opinion that:

        “the evidence that CO2 is the driver of such climate change as there is, is flawed”,

        but then neglect to substantiate it. By doing so you are asking all of us to accept that the theory is “flawed” on your authority – because of your expressed opinion. Sorry, but when it comes to overturning a theory…what’s your evidence? Is there any evidence out there that is not already in your possession?

        Btw, who claims CO2 is “the” only driver? If you cannot name them, then my opinion sir is that your opinion is not even wrong.
        Rudi.

      • @zazove
        “Btw, who claims CO2 is “the” only driver? If you cannot name them, then my opinion sir is that your opinion is not even wrong.”
        IPCC mission was to assess
        Human-induced climate change,
        The impacts of human-induced climate change,
        Options for adaptation and mitigation.
        This obviously do NOT preclude that CO2 is the only driver, and indeed in IPCC work many other drivers are mentioned … and discarded as being of lesser to no importance. The conclusion of IPCC are just about CO2, or CO2 equivalent. Nothing about land usage change, water usage, urban heat, or whatever. In this respect, methink it is fair to say that CO2 is “the” only driver for the IPCC, “the” one that rules them all.
        But I guess you will easily discard this as mere opinion.

  16. I like it….it would make a great movie…after the scientist speaks up all the zombies suddenly wake up and turn on greenies – nothing like finding out you been lied to…

  17. It don’t matter – a or The Cure for Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever you want to call it.

    It Is Not A Problem with the outside real world.
    It is all in people’s heads. If you cure cAGW, something else will come along to replace it.
    Just recognise what is described in this post = chat about what you, me or ‘the other person’ sees in pictures of the choreography of dancing faeries

    Why?
    Have a listen to the link coming up. Just the first 2 mins and 15 seconds.
    Be brave. Do not just dismiss the guy. Do not play the ‘Big Strong He Man’

    Most of all, be utterly honest with yourself in recognising any part of what he’s talking about.
    If you can’t, you have got what he’s talking about and there in is The Problem.

    Watch/listen here.

    There’s a whole series of the guy raving away, trying to sell his book and video series and hey why not, everyone’s gotta live.
    He does mention the cure in somewhere in his sales blurb and its very very simple..

    Recognise that sugar (carbohydrate) in our diet is NOT a replacement for saturated fat.
    That’s all. That’s it.
    Period

  18. A straw man article: no serious person ever claimed that 10 year intervals of any rise, pause or decline would be significant, desired or feared. Thus a solution for any decade of pause would simply not be interesting besides the possibility to understand the mechanics of that pause as to apply it our understanding of longer term fluctuations and cycles. It’s okay to have fiction but it’s more like a non-point made by suggesting a non-starter scenario. As such it’s more theatrical preaching ones belief… (welcome to climate politics then!)

    • Sheldon has doubled down on this fiction about 4 times in the last week. Despite the obvious flaws he ain’t letting go.

    • Phil Jones said fifteen years was significant and then backtracked on his assertion:

      “Yet he (Phil Jones) insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

      Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.””

      —————

      No wonder rational, objective people distrust Climate Science and see it for what it is: Political Propaganda.

  19. Letz me say it with the words of George Carlin: Leave nature alone!

    So called climate scientists should take off their fingers from things they don’t understand, and most notably from undemanded actions involving the whole mankind.
    This is not a question of side effect or cure but a question of overriding each single human’s own decision.
    Personally I hate those people wanting to play God on planetary levels. This is terrorism.
    There’s no reason and there’s no need.

    • I have to agree with petermue. I have spent the last three days shoveling (so far) a totla of 14 inches of global warming off my sidewalk and helping my neighbors shovel their global warming into the streets for the global warming plows to pick up. The original forecast for my area was 6″ to 10″, then 8″ to 12″, then back to 6 to 10, and now it is 14 inches and growing.

      I think the cure for the nonsense is to drag every one of these bozos out of their comfy offices, away from their computers and simulations, into the real world of high humidity and heavy snowfalls, and put shovels into their hands. Under supervision, of course, so that they don’t start doing equations in the snow or taking breaks for a nip of brandy.

      You have to have a sense of humor about the silliness the represent. If you don’t, if you can’t point at them and giggle while you’re deep in your mug of hot chocolate with or without marshmallows, and some turtle cheesecake at your elbow, then you’re lost.

      #makethemshovel!!

  20. Sheldon Walker, given that pauses like the one you believe is there are expected, what do you think your alleged pause means, scientifically?

    • But remember, historic proxy data shows century scale increases are also to be expected. So what does any century scale increase means scientifically?

      • I believe you are referring to one rapid increase that was explained, ad the explanation for that increase is known not to be operating now. Nevertheless, the current “century scale increase” is caused by burning fossil fuels, and nothing else, so Walker can’t hide from the question by using your alleged increase(s), because it was not caused by burning fossil fuels. The question remains: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one Walker alleges, if we assume the pause is really a pause, what is Walker’s point? What does he think it means scientifically?

      • No Martin, there are more than one century scale increases. Look at the chart for the GISP2 ice cores displayed elsewhere on this thread. Several century scale warming trends.

        Sorry, but it is obvious you don’t want to understand the truth. Yes, Walker is fooling himself but not in the way you think. Satellite data shows no warming for the 18 years prior to the recent El Nino blip. And, we can see in global SSTs that the El Nino blip has now dissipated and we are right back where we were.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/offset:-0.2/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2014.1/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2014/trend

      • Richard, you can’t measure global average temperature using an ice core from the center of Greenland. Nor can you use this old diversion: “Satellite data shows no warming for the 18 years prior to the recent El Nino blip. And, we can see in global SSTs that the El Nino blip has now dissipated and we are right back where we were.”

        Satellite data is for the mid-troposphere, which is 15,000 feet above sea level. No one lives there, I think you know. But, again, even if the pause you and Walker allege is a real pause, the question remains: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one Walker and you allege, if we assume the pause is really a pause, what is Walker’s point? What does he think it means scientifically?

        By the way, the two satellite datasets disagree with each other. You seem to have ignored that. You can’t.

      • @Martin Smith
        “Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one Walker and you allege, ”
        Oh. Who, and when, expected and predicted such pauses ? The only relevant paper I know of, was written AFTER the onset of the pause, and ruled out that it could last more than 15 years. It lasted 18 years.
        But I guess you know of a paper from before 1998, making such prediction: I’ll be happy if you shared it with us.

        “Nevertheless, the current “century scale increase” is caused by burning fossil fuels, and nothing else, ”
        Again, who wrote that? Who believes he KNOWS so much about the climate, that he can rule out anything else ? How this scientist explains the past climate events, and who believes him?
        Edward Lorenz wrote a seminal paper, explaining that this feat (attributing current increase to burning fuels) was just impossible, but I guess you know of a paper refuting his statement (Nobody’s perfect, you don’t have to trust Lorenz just because who he is). Again, could you please share it with us?

      • Martin and Tom, RSS is no longer satellite data. It is a hybrid of mixed sources. Sorry you haven’t figured that out. As for satellite data not being surface data that is a positive. It means it is not infected with UHI, infilling, homogenization, etc.

        I know you “want” to believe the surface data is true but that is far from being certain. On top of that, you have this thing called science which doesn’t let tropospheric data venture far from the surface. It’s called the adiabatic lapse rate. Unless you’ve encountered some kind of recent gravitational change in our planet you’d be wise to avoid claiming a long term difference.

        As for all the surface data sets agreeing with each other, they should. They are all mostly based on the same data source (GHCN) and use many of the same techniques. Hardly meaningful.

        Finally, the Greenland ice cores also agree with several other proxies. What, you really thought there was only one????? Amusing.

      • Sheldon Walker, Richard M, and (who rejoices in the name) paqyfelyc, I’m calling your bluff. If you believe there was a statistically significant pause, you must address this question: If the pause you all allege is a real pause, the question remains: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one you allege, if we assume the pause is really a pause, what is Walker’s point? What does it mean scientifically?

        Tamino has shown that the alleged pause was not a new signal but just the noise of variation, and such pauses are expected, so, despite the proof to the contrary, assume Walker’s analysis is robust. What does it mean scientifically?

        [??? .mod]

      • @Martin Smith
        I still wait for you to show us “that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” “. This is not a given for me. Just show us the paper from before the pause expecting and predicting a pause (just a single one, not even plural).

        As for your second sentence “Tamino has shown … What does it mean scientifically?”, that’s easy
        This scientifically means that what you call “the noise of variation” is at least as strong as the alleged signal, that we have no way to sort this signal out of the noise, that the signal may actually doesn’t exist at all, and even if the signal exist we will never know (and of course won’t be able to assess its strength) as we have no way to rule out the null hypothesis “this is just noise without underlying signal” (*). Which is just a basic skeptic position!
        So you are telling us that Tamino turned skeptic. Just fine, he wouldn’t be the first, but pretty unbelievable. Are you sure?

        (*) don’t take my word for truth, just ask some statistician

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “I still wait for you to show us “that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” “. ”

        paqyfelyc, let’s not argue about facts that aren’t controversial. Here is one proof: http://theconversation.com/the-climate-hiatus-doesnt-take-the-heat-off-global-warming-40686
        Here is another:
        https://skepticalscience.com/global_warming_still_happening.html
        Here is the best one:
        https://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

        Then paqyfelyc tried to put this up as the meaning of the alleged pause: “This scientifically means that what you call “the noise of variation” is at least as strong as the alleged signal, that we have no way to sort this signal out of the noise,”

        That doesn’t make sense. If it did make sense, the global average temperature wouldn’t be rising so fast, as predicted by climate science, and as observed by NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

        That signal you tried to say is matched by the alleged pause is actually very strong, and the temperature rise is much faster than natural global warming. You haven’t shown there is any meaning to your alleged pause, so, Sheldon Walker, Richard M, and paqyfelyc, I am still calling your bluff. By claiming there was a statistically significant pause, you must address this question: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one you allege, if we assume there really was a statistically significant pause, what is does it mean scientifically?

      • Martin, since you ignored the 18 year pause in satellite data I showed you earlier, it is evident that you will deny anything that does not support your belief system. Here it is again.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/offset:-0.2/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2014.1/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2014/trend

        Note that the only way the pause ended was by a 4 year period driven by El Nino caused increases in sea surface temperatures. We can now see that warming has completely disappeared. Hence, there is no reason to believe the pause will not reassert itself in the coming years.

        Your response was unscientific nonsense which I pointed out and thinking you refuted that graph is also nonsense. You haven’t called anyone’s bluff. You are just fooling yourself.

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin, since you ignored the 18 year pause in satellite data I showed you earlier, it is evident that you will deny anything that does not support your belief system.”

        I did not ignore a pause, nor have I denied a pause. I’m sure you won’t apologize for your false accusations, so I WILL ignore those. I am still calling your bluff. By claiming there was a statistically significant pause, you must address this question: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one you allege, if we assume there really was a statistically significant pause, what is does it mean scientifically? If there was a pause, it doesn’t damage the AGW case because |AGW projections show pauses like the one you are alleging. So what is your point?

        BTW, note again that the the two satellite datasets disagree, and the one you are touting disagrees with all other temperature datasets.

      • @Martin Smith
        So you use the words “predict” and “expect”, when someone explains in 2015 what happened starting 1998. Don’t expect that you can convince anyone, with such bad use of words.

        All you provided are links to “statistical shit happens, that’s how I explain AFTERWARD my prediction didn’t materialized, but it will, I promise, unless it doesn’t, which may happen from time to time again”. They don’t provide a figure of the probability of this happening, not even a guesstimate, just “may” and “likely”. That’s that you call science, really? Soothsaying can do better, do you call it science, too? Why not?

        “Then paqyfelyc … That doesn’t make sense.”
        As I said: don’t trust me, just ask some statistician, or some signal theorist : what does this means, when noise overrides a signal you are not even sure exist (nobody told you he sent you a signal, you just are sure there is a signal in some noisy natural data so you are trying to sort it out ).

        “That signal you tried to say is matched by the alleged pause”
        I guess you mean “That signal you tried to say is matched by the natural downward variation so that a pause appeared but that’s an illusion” (otherwise, the sentence means just nothing). But that’s not what “I” said, that’s what Tamino said, according to you. If you don’t believe it, well… that’s OK for me.
        If you asked ME, I would just quote Edward Lorenz: mathematics of Chaos prevents us to know nothing about a man-made signal. May be it is there, maybe not, there is just no scientific way to tell. This is not a science question, there is no way to prove either that it really exists, or that it really doesn’t exist (and of course, you cannot quantify it at all, either).

        “temperature rise is much faster than natural global warming.”
        Make you mind. This contradict your previous claim, that natural variations have strength enough to keep up with man-made, so that a pause appears.
        AND
        you claim to know enough about natural global warming to tell it is “much slower” than current temperature rise. Extraordinary claim, that require extraordinary evidence. Methink that it would be worth of both several Nobel Prize and a Field medal in Mathematics, and would dwarf the achievements of, well, list them ALL past geniuses. Not only that, but this knowledge is worth Trillions each year: Just tap on it for a small part, and you’ll have all the money you need to fund whatever you fancy, including Energiewende for the whole world if you will.

      • paqyfelyc: “As I said: don’t trust me, just ask some statistician,…”

        I did. Here are the analyses from the statistician:
        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/sheldon-walker-and-the-non-existent-pause/
        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/sheldon-walker-and-the-non-existent-slowdown/
        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/surface-temperature-and-satellite-temperature/
        https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/response-to-sheldon-walker/

        I am still calling your bluff. By claiming there was a statistically significant pause, you must address this question: Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one you allege, if we assume there really was a statistically significant pause, what does it mean scientifically? If there was a pause, it doesn’t damage the AGW case because AGW projections show pauses like the one you are alleging. So what is your point?

        Please understand, I’m not arguing with you about whether there was a pause. Obviously, I agree with Tamino’s analysis, not Sheldon Walker’s, because Tamino has proved Walker’s analysis is wrong. So this discussion is not about proving or disproving the pause. We are here assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was a pause. Then given the assumed pause, what do you think it means, given that climate science says such pauses must occur?

      • @Martin Smith
        “I am still calling your bluff.”

        Well, I already showed my cards, did you fail to notice? Let try again, some other way (the very same card, just at another angle)
        Given that climate science expects and predicts “pauses” like the one you allege, if we assume there really was a statistically significant pause, what does it mean scientifically? If there was a pause, it doesn’t damage the AGW case because AGW projections show pauses like the one you are alleging. So what is your point?
        So, you have a theory that is just immune to critics whatever happens. Warming Happens? Theory predicted it will. Warming don’t happen? Theory predicted, that, too. Zero falsifiability.
        “what does it mean scientifically?” It means the theory is simple NOT science.
        Science make serious prediction, serious hypothesis that can be tested, that is, can be proven false, so we can get rid of false hypothesis and try new one and make some progress. A theory that is right whatever happens can bring you some comfort, but I advise you turn to a proper religion instead. No lack of them, proven by centuries or millennia to bring solace and good enough advices to humankind about what to do or not.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “So, you have a theory that is just immune to critics whatever happens.”
        No, paq, I didn’t put forth any theory. Natural variation is simply part of the projections produced by global climate models. The outputs they produce include “pauses,” which are called natural variation. You can’t deny there is natural variation, paq. To do so, you would have to demand that AGW produce a monotonically increasing graph. You can’t do that. But, ok. You have asserted that global climate models do not show slowdowns/pauses in their outputs. You haven’t proved that. You demand proof of everything I say, although everything I say is public knowledge, but now you are claiming, without proof of any kind that global climate models do not show pauses from natural variation. They do, of course, but let’s assume they don’t. So now we are assuming (1) there was a pause, and (2) AGW must be monotonically increasing.

        We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino, and we know that the years you include in your pause were dominated by La Ninas with a few weak El Ninos. And, we know there was a lot of volcanic activity that threw up a lot of aerosol pollution, and there was a lot of aerosol pollution thrown up by China, India, and the burnin g of forests in Indonesia and Brazil. I assume you are also claiming (again without proof), that the extreme El Nino followed by mostly La Ninas and weak El Ninos and the volcanic activity, and the air pollution from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, had nothing at all to do with causing your “pause.”

        Then you really have to give us some idea of what caused your pause, paq. I have now given you every assumption you demand, without asking you to prove any of them. So you really do have to say what your pause means scientifically. You really do have to explain what caused it.

      • @Martin Smith
        “No, paq, I didn’t put forth any theory.”
        Don’t call it “theory” if you will. Doesn’t change anything. This “whatever you want to call it you put forth” is not science, period.

        “Natural variation is simply part of the projections produced by global climate models.”
        Nope. These variation are models variation, not natural variation. Nobody knows enough about natural climate variations to model them correctly. You even call them “noise”! Sorry, but Nature signal is THE signal, not noise, however noisy it may look.

        “The outputs they produce include “pauses,” which are called natural variation.”
        Call them “Arthur” if you will, that won’t allow them to run a round table society, any more than calling them “natural variation” won’t stop them to only be GIGO model variations, very far from natural variation as you admitted against your intention (see below).

        ” You can’t deny there is natural variation, paq. ”
        I don’t, quite the opposite, I accuse warmists of denying them, by retro-calculating them as the difference between what happened in reality and the assumed effect of GHG. A wicked procedure called “begging the question”, that you find in manuals of rhetorical bad tricks, not in science manuals. A proper science would first understand natural variations, and produce a convincing reproduction of past climate with no free parameters to fit, before trying to assess human effect on them.

        “To do so, you would have to demand that AGW produce a monotonically increasing graph. You can’t do that. ”
        Strawman. I demand that AGW theory produce a normal graph, with proper error bar according to what is known about natural variation and the system, so that we can check against reality. I demand that the graph be just that: a graph, a single one, not an “ensemble” from which one will randomly be right afterward, as a Blind Texas Sharpshooter using a machine gun with bullets of hundreds of manufacturers could randomly hit the target and claim the manufacturer makes good bullets. I demand that the graph be specific enough (i.e. that the target is small enough) that hitting the target is not a random event, so that the check really means something about the model.
        I don’t demand that this graph be monotonous. Just that it is drawn before the events, and that it fits them.
        Is that too much to ask, for people who call themselves scientists?
        Just for instance, physicists recently used 5 sigmas significance to be content that the signal they observed really was a signal and not some random event. By contrast, you proudly link to some work that, after some data torturing to extract unpredicted “noise”, “proved” that you cannot rule out that the Texas sharpshooter actually hit the mark…that is, 0 sigma significance.

        “You have asserted that global climate models do not show slowdowns/pauses in their outputs.”
        I didn’t. I am pretty sure they do experience slowdowns/pauses, and even worse, that they actually give wildly diverging, completely useless result. And they have to, if they did the job properly, since they deal with a chaotic system. Trouble is, such result is useless. So modelers hide this mess under some average, after discarding the most unbelievable result (iceball or Venus Earth within a century), and voilà.
        “You haven’t proved that. ”
        Irrelevant, as I said, I don’t believe what you think I asserted, pretty much the opposite.
        Besides, the burden of proof lies upon those who push the theory (or whatever you want to call it…), not the one like me.

        “You demand proof of everything I say, although everything I say is public knowledge”
        So much public knowledge, that you failed to produce a single evidence. How is that possible?

        “but now you are claiming, without proof of any kind that global climate models do not show pauses from natural variation. ”
        I didn’t claim that.

        “They do, of course, but let’s assume they don’t. So now we are assuming (1) there was a pause, and (2) AGW must be monotonically increasing.”
        Not “we”. Only you. The important thing for me is an increase according to prediction, not that the increase be monotonic. Yet another strawman of yours.

        “We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino, ”
        No, we don’t “know” that, because this is plainly false. If you had checked, you would know that
        1) the pause wasn’t calculated starting a convenient point, as warmists do, but backward from the current day to any point in the past showing a zero trend.
        2) and the resulting point was not at El nino, but before.
        proof here : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/
        (notice that the writer PREDICTED in his very first sentence that the pause will end soon; he made no effort, used no statistical trick to extend it or manufacture a new one, as your Tamino did to disappear it. Says much about intellectual honesty of each)
        So you should stop trust people who told you this lie.
        What we DO know, is that it took the recent extreme El Nino to stop the pause, and that it will resume if some decent la Nina occurs, which is not impossible, is it?

        ” I assume you are also claiming (again without proof), that the extreme El Nino followed by mostly La Ninas and weak El Ninos and the volcanic activity, and the air pollution from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, had nothing at all to do with causing your “pause.”
        You assume a lot. Actually, all your talk is just that: GIGO assumptions all the way down.
        I just claim that you find a 18 year of zero trend, that the theory didn’t predict beforehand. Quite simple, and quite easy to disprove if it were false: just show me a paper from ~2000 or before, warning that warming could go through a decade or two of stalling, according to theory.
        I also claim, after reading your excuse, that you admit that the theory (or whatever you call it) cannot cope with ENSO, volcanic activity, air pollution, forest fire, etc. I guess you have shorter time listing what it cope with. In the endless list of factor having an effect on climate, whatever happens, you will always find some excuse afterward to explain why the reality was different from prediction, you will always find some epicycle to add to have climate still revolving around CO2. You call this science?

        “Then you really have to give us some idea of what caused your pause, paq.”
        What caused the pause? the very same thing that caused climate to go through up and down all along recorded history. That is, the simple mathematical fact that, this is just the way a chaotic system behave without any external reason, and the empirical finding that climate is such a chaotic system.
        Be aware that is just what Edward Lorenz wrote, and nobody still didn’t dare write a refuting paper. Climatastrophologists just ignored what he wrote. Do you?

        ” I have now given you every assumption you demand,”
        No you didn’t. You still owe me a paper from ~2000 or before (before the pause), predicting that some pause could happen for a decade or two.
        “without asking you to prove any of them. ”
        Oh. So, when you wrote (just for instance) ” you are also claiming (again without proof)” or “You haven’t proved that. “, that’s not a way to ask for proof?
        Anyway, all I wrote is self evident, proven, or at least not claimed false by anyone (I admit this is no proof of validity, but is the best we currently have)

        “So you really do have to say what your pause means scientifically. You really do have to explain what caused it.
        Which I already did, several time. Let’s do this again (sigh…)
        The pause means that climate does what climate always did: up, down, and stall. The pause means, if predicted possible by the AGW theory, that the theory is not even wrong: impossible to check whether it is true or not; not science. The pause means, if not predicted by the AGW theory, that the theory is wrong.

        You’ll notice that answering your claims and demands resulted in an awfully long comment. A pretty redundant one, moreover, has I just essentially repeated what I previously wrote to you. Please be a good faith person, and refrain from that, from now on. Stop making assumption, using strawman, repeating blatantly false claims, and ignoring answers already given to you. Make the effort to read and understand what has already been written before. Please.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “Nope. These variation are models variation, not natural variation. Nobody knows enough about natural climate variations to model them correctly” …and: “Strawman. I demand that AGW theory produce a normal graph, with proper error bar according to what is known about natural variation and the system, so that we can check against reality” …and “You still owe me a paper from ~2000 or before (before the pause), predicting that some pause could happen for a decade or two.”

        You are saying the same thing 3 different ways, but you are wrong. The Global Climate Models do have decade+ long natural variations. This is how it works. A GCM includes submodels for all of the physical systems listed as the column headings in Tables 9.A.1 and 9.A.2 beginning on page 854 of the document linked here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

        These are the physical subsystems we understand well. Not completely, but quite well enough to model them. The physical subsystems are: Atmosphere, Aerosol, Atmosphere Chemistry, Land Surface, Ocean, Ocean Bio-Geo Chemistry, and Sea Ice. When all these submodels are coupled, they each affect the model output and the result is what you call natural variation. That is, it is the interaction of all these real-world physical systems that cause natural variation. Did you really think natural variation was some separate force we don’t understand? It’s not. It is an emergent property of the interaction of all the physical subsystems, and the natural variation shown in the models’ outputs matches well the natural variation we see in the observed data.

        So, none of you has addressed the issue, which remains: We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino, and we know that the years you include in your pause were dominated by La Ninas with a few weak El Ninos. And, we know there was a lot of volcanic activity that threw up a lot of aerosol pollution, and there was a lot of aerosol pollution thrown up by China, India, and the burnin g of forests in Indonesia and Brazil. I assume you are also claiming (again without proof), that the extreme El Nino followed by mostly La Ninas and weak El Ninos and the volcanic activity, and the air pollution from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, had nothing at all to do with causing your “pause.”

        Then you really have to give us some idea of what caused your pause, paq. I have now given you every assumption you demand, without asking you to prove any of them. So you really do have to say what your pause means scientifically. You really do have to explain what caused it.

        Aside:
        And you wrote: “1) the pause wasn’t calculated starting a convenient point, as warmists do, but backward from the current day to any point in the past showing a zero trend.” Wow! That’s the most obvious admission of cherrypicking I have ever seen. Note that (a) your calculation ALWAYS includes the extreme El Nino year 1998, because without it, there is no zero trend (FTR: the trend is still positive even with the El Nino), and (b) you also stop the calculation when there is a large rise. You are admitting to choosing both the starting point and the ending point, and you cherrypick these points to get a zero trend. You can’t do that.

      • Dave Fair wrote: “But wasted on true believers; facts do not matter in political debates.”

        Dave, will you answer the question then? paqyfelyc refuses. He tried this: “The pause means that climate does what climate always did: up, down, and stall,” which is tautological and ignores completely the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to both the atmosphere and the oceans. We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino, and we know that the years you include in your pause were dominated by La Ninas with a few weak El Ninos. And, we know there was a lot of volcanic activity that threw up a lot of aerosol pollution, and there was a lot of aerosol pollution thrown up by China, India, and the burning of forests in Indonesia and Brazil. I assume you are also claiming that the extreme El Nino followed by mostly La Ninas and weak El Ninos and the volcanic activity, and the air pollution from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, had nothing at all to do with causing your “pause.”

        Then what caused your pause, Dave. What your pause means scientifically? You really do have to explain what caused it.

      • @Martin Smith
        February 14, 2018 at 2:41 am

        “You are saying the same thing 3 different ways, ”
        Nice you noticed, at last! Now just answer, if you please: produce a decent scientific graph from ~2000 or before hinting at a possible “pause” for a decade or two. Still waiting.

        “These are the physical subsystems we understand well. Not completely, but quite well enough to model them. etc. ”
        Sure, but not enough to get rid of the “butterfly effect”, so the model result are just crap. And actually not even godlike understanding would be enough.

        “We know that your alleged pause blah blah blah”
        Now, this is enough.
        What’s your intent?
        To prove Dave Fair (February 13, 2018 at 10:59 pm) right in implying you belong true believers, impervious to simple facts, along with flat-Earthers, creationists and fake-moon-landing conspiracy theorists? You are doing a good job at it, then.

        I however already explained you. I’ll do a last time:
        Even when fully determinists, perfectly cause-consequence related, systems in chaotic mode, from which climate was the archetype, ALWAYS experience wild variations WITH NO EXTERNAL CAUSE AT ALL
        Got it? Is that clear, now?
        Stop pretending a cause is required.
        Stop demanding the production of some other cause to accept the failure of your favorite (CO2 for you; other people have other obsessions) to explain things.
        STOP IT
        NOW
        FOREVER
        And start reading basic literature about chaos theory. Starting wikipedia. You’ll then answer yourself your questions, and facepalm you saying “damn, how could I be so stupid to trust this damn not-even-wrong, not scientific, AGW theory”.

        That’s why I didn’t asked you to explain why, despite much more CO2 than previously though was dumped into the atmosphere, the pause happened. I know you cannot. I know this is mathematically impossible. And I know you ask silly rhetorical question because you wrongly believe you and Tamino know something. Neither of you do.

        PS Your side note is laughable, and just prove, again, how scientifically weak you are. Cherry picking is when you intend to prove a theory out of a cases that agree while disregarding cases that disagree, which is just what YOU do. Pointing at a disagreeing case to disprove a theory in not only allowed, it is just the way it works, and that’s not cherry-picking.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “Even when fully determinists, perfectly cause-consequence related, systems in chaotic mode, from which climate was the archetype, ALWAYS experience wild variations WITH NO EXTERNAL CAUSE AT ALL”
        Sorry, but that’s a complete non sequitur. We’re not talking about external causes for the natural variation. Please do not change the subject. You have to explain what is causing your alleged pause, because the global climate models do show pauses like the one you allege. Here is the explanation. Please address it:

        The Global Climate Models do have decade+ long natural variations. This is how it works. A GCM includes submodels for all of the physical systems listed as the column headings in Tables 9.A.1 and 9.A.2 beginning on page 854 of the document linked here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

        These are the physical subsystems we understand well. Not completely, but quite well enough to model them. The physical subsystems are: Atmosphere, Aerosol, Atmosphere Chemistry, Land Surface, Ocean, Ocean Bio-Geo Chemistry, and Sea Ice. When all these submodels are coupled, they each affect the model output and the result is what you call natural variation. That is, it is the interaction of all these real-world physical systems that cause natural variation. Did you really think natural variation was some separate force we don’t understand? It’s not. It is an emergent property of the interaction of all the physical subsystems, and the natural variation shown in the models’ outputs matches well the natural variation we see in the observed data.

        So, none of you has addressed the issue, which remains: We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino, and we know that the years you include in your pause were dominated by La Ninas with a few weak El Ninos. And, we know there was a lot of volcanic activity that threw up a lot of aerosol pollution, and there was a lot of aerosol pollution thrown up by China, India, and the burnin g of forests in Indonesia and Brazil. I assume you are also claiming (again without proof), that the extreme El Nino followed by mostly La Ninas and weak El Ninos and the volcanic activity, and the air pollution from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, had nothing at all to do with causing your “pause.”

        Then you really have to give us some idea of what caused your pause, paq. I have now given you every assumption you demand, without asking you to prove any of them. So you really do have to say what your pause means scientifically. You really do have to explain what caused it.

        Aside:
        And you wrote: “1) the pause wasn’t calculated starting a convenient point, as warmists do, but backward from the current day to any point in the past showing a zero trend.” Wow! That’s the most obvious admission of cherrypicking I have ever seen. Note that (a) your calculation ALWAYS includes the extreme El Nino year 1998, because without it, there is no zero trend (FTR: the trend is still positive even with the El Nino), and (b) you also stop the calculation when there is a large rise. You are admitting to choosing both the starting point and the ending point, and you cherrypick these points to get a zero trend. You can’t do that.

        [?? .mod]

      • @Martin Smith
        OMG, are you hopeless? Now you see “non sequitur” in a simple statement of fact…
        Just read wikipedia about chaotic systems (and “non sequitur”, too, that wouldn’t hurt). I am not to teach basics to a man who have rather protect his ignorance with pedant misuse of formulae like “non sequitur” and “sherry-picking”, and false assumptions he refuses to let go.
        Come back when enlighten, or come back when confused but at least conscious and eager to learn, then I could help.

      • paqyfelyc, this is what you wrote: “Even when fully determinists, perfectly cause-consequence related, systems in chaotic mode, from which climate was the archetype, ALWAYS experience wild variations WITH NO EXTERNAL CAUSE AT ALL”

        It is a non sequitur. You are claiming that natural variation is not caused because the global climate is chaotic. Your statement is false. Chaos does not mean “without cause.”

        Now you write this: “Just read wikipedia about chaotic systems…”

        I understand chaos, paq. You can’t appeal to chaos theory to refute the point of this discussion. The Global Climate Models do have decade+ long natural variations, what you call pauses. These are projected by the GCM’s. This is how it works. A GCM includes submodels for all of the physical systems listed as the column headings in Tables 9.A.1 and 9.A.2 beginning on page 854 of the document linked here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

        These are the physical subsystems we understand well. Not completely, but quite well enough to model them. The physical subsystems are: Atmosphere, Aerosol, Atmosphere Chemistry, Land Surface, Ocean, Ocean Bio-Geo Chemistry, and Sea Ice. When all these submodels are coupled, they each affect the model output and the result is what you call natural variation. That is, it is the interaction of all these real-world physical systems that cause natural variation. Did you really think natural variation was some separate force we don’t understand? It’s not. It is an emergent property of the interaction of all the physical subsystems, and the natural variation shown in the models’ outputs matches well the natural variation we see in the observed data.

        You can’t refute the point by calling me stupid. Nor can you ignore the evidence. GCM’s do predict there will be periods where there is little or no temperature rise, even declines are possible, so proving there was a pause (which neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor Dave Fair has done, does not argue against AGW. It isn’t evidence in your favor at all — UNLESS you can say what caused the alleged pause. Can you?

      • @Martin Smith
        stop this nonsense. You use your mind in the most perverse way, finding the most stupid, nonsensical interpretation of what I wrote, to use it as strawman. Where do you think this attitude will get you?

        A non sequitur is about two statements, and a false claim that validity of one says something about of the other. I made a single statement. No “non sequitur” possible.

        “I understand chaos, paq.” Well, all what you wrote is proof of the opposite: no one understanding chaos would make the kind of demand for a “cause” that you do. Do you know why I mentioned Ed Lorenz? Someone understanding chaos and what it means for climate, would.
        Not understanding chaos is not a trouble per se. You can still learn. I just warn you: understandingh as a price. downgrading part of what you think is “knowledge” into mere “belief” outside of science. Are you ready for that?

      • paq, your claim is a non sequitur. You are claiming that natural variation is not caused because the global climate is chaotic. Your conclusion does not follow from the facts. The global climate IS chaotic. No one disputes that. But being chaotic does not mean the natural variation is not caused by the interactions of the many physical subsystems we do understand fairly well.

        You can’t appeal to chaos theory to refute the point of this discussion. The Global Climate Models do have decade+ long natural variations, what you call pauses. These are projected by the GCM’s. This is how it works. A GCM includes submodels for all of the physical systems listed as the column headings in Tables 9.A.1 and 9.A.2 beginning on page 854 of the document linked here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

        These are the physical subsystems we understand well. Not completely, but quite well enough to model them. The physical subsystems are: Atmosphere, Aerosol, Atmosphere Chemistry, Land Surface, Ocean, Ocean Bio-Geo Chemistry, and Sea Ice. When all these submodels are coupled, they each affect the model output and the result is what you call natural variation. That is, it is the interaction of all these real-world physical systems that cause natural variation. Did you really think natural variation was some separate force we don’t understand? It’s not. It is an emergent property of the interaction of all the physical subsystems, and the natural variation shown in the models’ outputs matches well the natural variation we see in the observed data.

        You can’t refute the point by calling me stupid. Nor can you ignore the evidence. GCM’s do predict there will be periods where there is little or no temperature rise, even declines are possible, so proving there was a pause (which neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor Dave Fair has done, does not argue against AGW. It isn’t evidence in your favor at all — UNLESS you can say what caused the alleged pause. Can you?

      • Martin Smith claims: ” We know that your alleged pause began with an extreme El Nino”

        So what. We also know that the El Nino was followed by a 3 year La Nina which completely balanced out any effect of the El Nino on the trend. Why do warmists continue to prove they are math illiterates? Just check out the trend after all of the ENSO years. It is actually more negative.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend

      • Richard M wrote: “So what. We also know that the El Nino was followed by a 3 year La Nina which completely balanced out any effect of the El Nino on the trend. Why do warmists continue to prove they are math illiterates? Just check out the trend after all of the ENSO years. It is actually more negative.”

        Richard M is using UAH data, which (a) shows the temperature at 15,000 feet, not sea level, and (b) disagrees with not only the RSS satellite data for temperature at 15,000, but also disagrees with all the surface temperature datasets. RSS and UAH start with the same data from the satellites and arrive at different results. The RSS result agrees with the surface temperature datasets, and the UAH result, which Richard M is using here, disagrees with the surface temperature datasets.

        So Richard M is, by implication, claiming that the UAH result is correct, and the |RSS result is incorrect. Richard M is also claiming by implication, that all the surface temperature datasets (the ones measured by thermometers) are wrong. Richard M’s claim that there was a pause is seen to be false when he uses RSS or any of the surface temperature datasets.

        The question remains, Richard. Suppose there was a pause. The occurrence of a pause does not argue against AGW, for there have been many pauses, and yet the observed rise in global average surface temperature continues to match the expected rise predicted by AGW theory: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

        So what is the meaning of your alleged pause?

      • Martin Smith: “If there was a pause, it doesn’t damage the AGW case because |AGW projections show pauses like the one you are alleging.”

        Santer et al in trying to support your beliefs actually found out that pauses over 17 years in length were out side the 95% confidence level. So, an 18 year pause is scientifically meaningful. And, if you simply remove years with ENSO effects (let’s call it noise). then you will see a period of over 20 years with no warming.

        How long a period of no warming do you need before you question your belief system???? I have a feeling the answer is infinite.

      • Martin Smith:

        “If there was a pause, it doesn’t damage the AGW case because AGW projections show pauses like the one you are alleging.”

        Please show us ANY series of actual model runs, their date-time-group report with all relevant temperatures and temperature graphics, and ALL inputs, that do actually show:
        any 5 year pause within a 150 year run, CO2 increasing exactly as it has been, from the conditions found in 1997. NO forced assumptions on CO2.
        any 10 year pause in 150 years of projected global average temperatures, same conditions
        any 15 year pause in 150 years of projected global average temperatures, same conditions
        any 20 year pause in global average temperatures after the same 150 years projection.

        IF your claim is correct, there will be a very large number of 5 year flat temperature projections as CO2 increases.
        IF your claim is correct, there will be a large number of 10 year pauses as well, but fewer than above. If your models are correct, these pauses will begin randomly as some of the 5-year pauses continue, and some are stopped by cooling (as we had from 1945-1975), and some by a renewal of heating.

        Same with 15 pauses: Fewer than the 10 years group, but several. You claim 18 year pauses have been found, so several (3 or 4) shorter 15 year pauses must be easy to find!

        IF your claim is correct, there MUST occur at least two or more “random” 20 years pauses. After all, you claim to have evidence the models have already produced these results, do you not?

      • Richard M wrote: “Santer et al in trying to support your beliefs actually found out that pauses over 17 years in length were out side the 95% confidence level. So, an 18 year pause is scientifically meaningful.”

        Richard, I have asked several times now for you to say what that meaning is. Nevermind that you are still using ONLY UAH data while ignoring ALL the other datasets which disagree with UAH while all agreeing with each other. There have been many pauses: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

        You claim your alleged 18 year pause is scientifically meaningful. What, exactly, is that meaning?

      • @Martin Smith
        You are not talking to me. You didn’t even read me. You just build some strawman out of the most stupid interpretation you could imagine out of what I wrote, pushing aside anything that could bother you (this is cherry picking, you know?), so as to have the upper hand. This strawman you call “paq”, but actually is just yourself, as you failed to notice.
        Well, you are doing yourself no favor. You are just downgrading yourself in this mudwrestling of your ego against your homunculus, that your ego always win, of course. Why don’t you try to upgrade your play? into an upper league where you could lose, but with panache, and even a loss would actually be a victory for you, because you would learn something? Why don’t you address YOUR current shortcoming, instead of trying to exploit the fake one you assigned to me (which is not actually me, just your homunculus, but is makes no difference AFAYAC) ?

        “You can’t refute the point by calling me stupid”.
        Oh. I see. You are afraid of being stupid. Which answer previous question. You shouldn’t. It takes a clever mind, to fool oneself in such a way you do. If you weren’t so afraid, you would quit aforementioned mudfight.
        Fear usually drives you right were you don’t want to go, your fear of being stupid is what makes you appear so (in your own mind). BTW, to repeat oneself again and again is great way to appear stupid, you know…

        I am no calling you stupid. I am calling you ignorant, and ignorant you proved yourself. You obviously do not know why I mentioned Ed Lorenz, and your explanation about chaos was not about chaos, as you think is was, but about a system made of many parts, which is very different and barely overlapping. The climate is not a car. So, don’t try again to prove you know about chaos; well, at least not before you actually do, which would require some reading first. Etc.
        Teach less, Learn more. You can do it, I promise you are not stupid. I promise you can become a skeptic (Just wondering if you have any sense of humor…)

        “Nor can you ignore the evidence. ”
        You mean, the evidence you never produced? Fairly simple to ignore, unfortunately.

      • paqyfelyc, please stop attacking me. Address the point. We are here simply assuming the alleged pause is real. We know that global climate models show pauses in their outputs, so what is the meaning of this alleged pause? Here is a good paper on the subject: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        Assuming the pause exists, and given that there have been many pauses (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), why are you saying THIS most recent pause means AGW is wrong, when none of the other pauses before it (see the link) meant AGW is wrong?

      • @Martin Smith
        You repeat yourself.
        You still only provide papers from 2010 and after. Still waiting for the prediction you claim exist. Remember: a prediction is made BEFORE having knowledge of the predicted, not after
        Alternatively, you could simply recognize you have no evidence of such prediction, and you can only provide papers made afterward. Is that SO hard for you?
        You again invent my saying something. Why don’t you simply read what I wrote, instead, for once (no evidence you ever did, so far)?

        But, let’s pretend I didn’t made myself perfectly clear. Why not. Let’s try again, then.
        I am not saying AGW is wrong. I am saying it is not-even-wrong: nothing can disprove it. The theory begins with huge target hard to miss, and even if it miss a target, no problem, you just need to invoke afterward some volcano, pollution, meteorite, ENSO, whatever, or even some fancy statistical treatment of the poor available data, to explain any discrepancy. “With four parameters, I can fit an Elephant, with five I can have him wiggle his trunk”, and they have HUNDREDS of parameters to choose from.
        YOU are, involuntarily, fueling my assertion, actually, when you provide papers “this event we didn’t predict, doesn’t disprove the theory, because [insert made-up afterward excuses]”. QED.
        Not falsifiable. Not reproducible. Not predictive. Not operative. How do you call it?

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “You still only provide papers from 2010 and after. Still waiting for the prediction you claim exist.”
        I’m sorry, are you now also cherrypicking years you will accept papers from? Cherrypicking data as you are is bad enough, but now you refuse to consider papers written since 2010. Sorry, that’s not on. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO do show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        And, sorry again, but the observed data do show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that do include ENSO do show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of what you call pauses.

        paqyfelyc also wrote: “I am not saying AGW is wrong. I am saying it is not-even-wrong: nothing can disprove it.”
        That’s an interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with this topic, which is this. Assuming the pause exists, and given that there have been many pauses (see link above), if you are not saying your alleged pause invalidates AGW, what are you claiming the pause means? What is the significance of the pause, given that global average temperature is rising as AGW predicts? The only explanation for the temperature rise we have seen over the last 100+ years is AGW. The way you disprove AGW is to propose a different theory that accounts for all the data and that makes better predictions about the future than AGW. I don’t think you have an alternative theory, but here we are only discussing your claim that your cherrypicked pause has scientific significance. What is that significance?

      • Martin Smith: “Nevermind that you are still using ONLY UAH data …”

        This gets to the nut of the issue. When faced with uncomfortable facts Martin’s only response is denial. I already answered his made up problems with UAH yet he still spews nothing but denial. It is obvious that Martin’s opinion is driven by what he wants to believe. No facts will be allowed to intrude.

      • Richard M wrote: “Santer et al in trying to support your beliefs actually found out that pauses over 17 years in length were out side the 95% confidence level. So, an 18 year pause is scientifically meaningful.”

        Richard, I have asked several times now for you to say what that meaning is. You have stated again that your alleged pause is scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • Martin, when you look at model produced pauses or pauses during warming periods you will find they are normally caused by ENSO. They usually end with a simulated period of cool La Nina or start with a simulated El Nino or both. That is no doubt true of Santer et al.

        Now look at this UAH data.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend

        It actually starts with La Nina conditions and ends at the start of an El Nino. Exactly the opposite of what is needed for the models to produce a pause. Get it? Where are model based pauses of this length that aren’t the result of ENSO (or simulated volcano)?

        Welcome to reality. This is what is known as falsification.

      • Richard M wrote: “Now look at this UAH data.”

        Richard M is trying to deceive you. You can’t get away with this, Richard. Your post is wrong for two reasons. First, you only use the UAH dataset. Why? You cherrypicked the UAH data alone because it is the only dataset that allows you to make your claim there was a pause. If you include the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, HadCRUT4, and RSS datasets, you can’t.

        Second, your graph has not removed the ENSO effect. You must remove it, because your graph begins with an extreme El Nino anomaly in 1998. Your token inclusion of 1997 doesn’t change this. You can discover for yourself how to remove the ENSO effect. This is not how its done, but do your computation again without that one El Nino datapoint. Where did your alleged pause go?

      • Martin is now ignoring several things I already pointed out. The 1998 El Nino has no effect on the trend since it is surrounded by several La Nina events. This is obvious in the graph I showed him where I also provided a trend line starting in 2001.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend

        UAH is the best data we have. All the rest have huge problems that Martin doesn’t want to accept. None of the surface data has widespread coverage, it’s infected by UHI, it uses poor technology and it is constantly adjusted by biased folks. RSS throws out data and replaces it with something from models or the very same lousy surface data. Pure junk.

        The bottom line is Martin has denied anything that prevents him from holding on to his current beliefs. He even ignores obvious facts that have been pointed out to him multiple times.

        The pause is based on the best data we have and it has clearly shown that the models do not work. No model produces an 18 year pause that isn’t caused by timely placed ENSO events. If Martin cared about the truth this would be meaningful, but instead all is can do is spew ad homs.

      • Richard M wrote: “The 1998 El Nino has no effect on the trend since it is surrounded by several La Nina events.”
        That’s astonishing, Richard. You are saying that the highest temperature in the data has no effect on the average of the data, because it has colder temperatures on either side of it. That’s false. Remove the temperature for 1998 and recompute the trend.

        Richard M wrote: “UAH is the best data we have.” “RSS throws out data and replaces it with something from models…”
        That’s also astonishing, Richard. UAH and RSS start from the same dataset. That data is NOT temperature data. Temperature data is implied from the satellite data by passing the satellite data through a model. The reason the UAH model output disagrees with the RSS model output is that they use different models. The RSS model outputs data that agree with NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4. The UAH model outputs data that disagree with NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4. So you have no basis for claiming the UAH data is “the best data we have.” Your deception fails.

      • Martin Smith: ” You are saying that the highest temperature in the data has no effect on the average of the data, because it has colder temperatures on either side of it. That’s false. Remove the temperature for 1998 and recompute the trend.”

        That is exactly what I did, Martin. I provided you a link. Did you even look at it? Of course, I didn’t JUST remove the warm outlier event, I also removed the cold ones. That’s why it balanced out. When that was done the trend was actually lower. Here are both trends yet again.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend

        So, we have now established beyond any doubt that you will lie to maintain your belief system. As for RSS I suggest you read up on what they did in version 4. Your description is wrong again. Or, is it another intentional lie? Here’s what they say:

        “To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant. This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.”

        Martin, as you can see your description was wrong. RSS now uses made up data to replace observations. Why do you insist on lying? Do you actually think lying makes you look smarter?

        I no longer plan to respond to your lies. It is obvious you aren’t interested in the truth. Trying to educate someone who is not interested in the truth is a waste of time.

      • Richard M wrote: “That is exactly what I did, Martin. I provided you a link.”

        No, you didn’t. You chose 2001. That’s not the same interval. I said leave out the data point for 1998. Start at 1997 but leave out 1998. You didn’t do that. The reason you didn’t do that is because you knew it would prove you are wrong. So what did you do? Did you choose to start at 1999, the year after the one you have to delete? No. Why? Because that also proves you are wrong. Try it. Start at 1999. Redo the computation. The trend rises. And if you started at 1997 but left out 1998, it would rise more steeply. What you have done now is prove that you are trying to deceive. Your deception fails.

        You have multiple problems in your method. You aren’t removing the effects of ENSO. You aren’t removing the effects of volcanic activity. You aren’t removing the effects of changes in solar irradiance. You can see the effects of doing all of these here: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
        Skip down to the section titled: “Removing El Niño and other Exogeneous Factors.” Note that See the animation. All the datasets are shown, even your preferred UAH. And there is no pause. Why? Because the exogenous factors we can remove have been removed. You didn’t do that. Your method is wrong.

        Richard M wrote: “Martin, as you can see your description was wrong.”

        Nope. Your understanding is incorrect. Your cherrypicked quote (without attribution) indicates the RSS data has been corrected for a known error, which, you apparently mean, has not been corrected in the UAH data. How can you claim the UAH data “the best data we have” while admitting that it contains a known error?

        Richard M wrote: “I no longer plan to respond…”

        Of course not. You have been caught out. You must leave the field.

      • Martin Smith: “I said leave out the data point for 1998. ”

        Oh I just had to laugh at this. You want only the warm ENSO year removed at the start of the trend but not the cold ENSO years. LMAO. That’s like telling your bank you want only the payments removed from your bank balance but not the deposits and saying “see, I wasn’t overdrawn”. I really didn’t think anyone could be this inane.

        Martin, your comments are nothing but pure nonsense. If you think you’ve made any points you are kidding yourself. All you have done is proven beyond any doubt that you are scientifically illiterate.

      • Richard M wrote: “You want only the warm ENSO year removed at the start of the trend but not the cold ENSO years.”
        Removing a single data point from your alleged pause shows changes your flat trend to an increasing trend. That’s the point. You saw that and reduced the length of your period. Not 1 year; not 2 years, not 3 years, but 4 years. You did that to prevent your readers from seeing the truth. Your alleged pause depends on the extreme El Nino anomaly in 1998. Take that out, and you have nothing.

        Your attempted deception fails.

      • OMG, you aren’t just a troll, you are a clueless troll. You don’t even have a clue what ENSO is or how it works. You obviously think removing just an El Nino event is a valid scientific argument. LOL. My analogy above was perfect. You only want payments removed from your back account.

        On the chance that you really are just this naive, let me educate you. ENSO events are whenever the tropical Pacific is either .5 C above (El Nino) or below (La Nina) average. Got that???? Do you understand was “below” means? If you remove JUST the above events you aren’t correcting for ENSO, you are producing scientific gibberish. In fact, let’s flip my analogy above, let’s only remove large deposits from your bank account. Would you think your bank balance was valid if the bank did that???? Well, that is exactly what you want to do.

        What we had over the 1997-2001 time period was one large deposit (1998 El Nino) and one large payment (1999-2001 La Nina). They essentially canceled each other out as far as the planet’s energy balance. You can remove all of them or none of them. Anything else is nonsense. That was what the two lines in my link showed. Either way gives you a valid trend and they are almost identical.

        I do have to take some of the blame here. I thought anyone coming on here to discuss climate would have a small understanding of subject. Martin is completely illiterate when it comes to climate. He didn’t have a clue what ENSO was (probably still doesn’t).

        PS. I used my usual troll bait earlier. If I want to determine if a person is a troll I tell them I am leaving. If they are a troll they will jump up and down and claim victory. Martin took the bait eagerly and showed his true colors. :))

      • Richard M wrote: “You don’t even have a clue what ENSO is or how it works. You obviously think removing just an El Nino event is a valid scientific argument.”
        No, Richard. I told you from the start, and you ignored: “This is not how its done, but do your computation again without that one El Nino datapoint.”

        Richard M wrote: “If you remove JUST the above events you aren’t correcting for ENSO,”
        That’s what I said above, Richard. You ignored it. The point is that if you remove one data point from your zero trend line, it reverts to the upward trend that is there in the entire dataset. You can’t do that with any other data point in your cherrypicked interval except 1998, which was an extreme El Nino anomaly. It was the warmest year by far at that point, and it remained the warmest year until, what was it, 2013? 2014? Your entire alleged pause.

        Richard M wrote: “What we had over the 1997-2001 time period was one large deposit (1998 El Nino) and one large payment (1999-2001 La Nina). They essentially canceled each other out as far as the planet’s energy balance. You can remove all of them or none of them. Anything else is nonsense.”
        No, they didn’t. But your miscue is partially right. You must remove all of them. These actual scientists did remove all of them. See the animation of the result in the section titled: “Removing El Niño and other Exogeneous Factors.” https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

        Note that all the datasets are shown, including your preferred UAH. No pause in any of them. Your attempted deception fails.

      • Martin, as I already explained to you several ways, removing just one El Nino event from a trend results in gibberish. What happens if you removed the 1999-2001 La Nina? Yes, that is one event. That would turn the trend into a strongly declining trend. Of course, that would also be gibberish but it demonstrates that your point is silly.

        Only removing the outlier data that supports your bias is nonsense and the fact you would even suggest it shows you don’t understand the first thing about science. To get a ****legitimate*** trend you need to balance out the climate noise. Removing part of the noise and leaving another part that we know are related is beyond silly. The fact you keep harping on this anti-science nonsense is informative.

        What is really funny is you then refer to the Skeptical Science propaganda which just happens to end with the 2010 El Nino but doesn’t include the following La Nina event. Talk about anti-science. What happens if you compute the trend without the 2010 El Nino? Oh yeah, the trend goes negative. The fact you don’t even see how this completely destroys your arguments is hysterical. Your claim of “no pause” is precisely due to cherry picking ONLY the 2010 El Nino and not including the La Nina event that naturally follows. Let’s look at the same data with the La Nina event.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2012/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2012/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2012/trend

        Martin, to put gently you are making a complete fool of yourself. Did you even know that El Nino and La Nina events generally come as pairs? Yes, they are physically linked. You would do well to understand Bjerknes feedback and why El Nino conditions spawn La Nina conditions.

      • Richard M misses the point: “as I already explained to you several ways, removing just one El Nino event from a trend results in gibberish.”

        That’s incorrect, Richard. Forget that these are global average temperature anomalies. They are just data points, one for each year beginning in 1997 and ending in 2015. The number for 1998 is of dubious value because it is extremely high. Using all the data points, the trend line is flat. But if you remove one number, the one for 1998, the trend line rises kind of dramatically. And if you then add all the other data points for all the years you left out, you see that even if we also add the extreme anomaly for 1998, the rising trend line approaches the rising trend line for your 1997-2015 trend line without the 1998 number. That’s the point.

        Richard M then wrote: “What is really funny is you then refer to the Skeptical Science propaganda which just happens to end with the 2010 El Nino but doesn’t include the following La Nina event.”

        Richard, that’s because the paper was written in 2010 and published in 2011, before your following La Nina event. When it is included, and when all the years following it are included, and when all the years prior to your cherrypick 1997 are included, your attempted deception fails even worse. And Skeptical Science didn’t write the paper. Two real scientists wrote the paper. One real statistician and one real climate scientist: Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf. Here is their paper, which you apparently still have not read: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
        And here is the discussion of their paper, which you apparently have still not understood: https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

        And finally, Richard M wrote: ” Did you even know that El Nino and La Nina events generally come as pairs?”

        No, they don’t. See figure 6: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin, as I already explained to you several ways, removing just one El Nino event from a trend results in gibberish.”

        Let’s test your theory, Richard. We will leave out the El Nino in 1998, and since you claim an El Nino must be paired with a La Nina, we will leave out the La Nina in 1997. Recompute: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend

        The trend is up. Your deception fails.

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin is working very hard to try and hold on to his belief system.”

        Richard, my belief system has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of scientific propositions. And I do understand Bjerknes feedback.

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • Martin spews more nonsense … “The number for 1998 is of dubious value because it is extremely high. Using all the data points, the trend line is flat. But if you remove one number, the one for 1998, the trend line rises kind of dramatically. ”

        First of all it isn’t a single data point. Each month is a data point. Second, as I already told you, if you leave out the La Nina data points (those numbers are just as “dubious” as the El Nino numbers) the line falls dramatically. Neither one of those situations is reality. The result of leaving them out is completely and totally meaningless.

        The fact you keep repeating nonsense only solidifies the fact you are completely illiterate when it comes to science. This is exactly the same as leaving out your bank deposits in my analogy. Would you accept a bank balance where they left out your deposits???? Maybe one of them was big and of “dubious” value. What would it mean? Would it tell you anything at all?

        This is not rocket science.

        Now it gets even more humorous. Martin claims El Nino and La Nina events don’t often come in pairs. Here is the NOAA data. Let’s take a look.

        http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

        1983 El Nino
        1984-85 La Nina

        1987-88 El Nino
        1989 La Nina

        1995 El Nino
        1996 La Nina

        1998 El Nino
        1999-2001 La Nina

        2005 El Nino
        2006 La Nina

        2007 El Nino
        2008-09 La Nina

        2010 El Nino
        2011-12 La Nina

        2015-16 El Nino
        2017 La Nina

        Even clueless Martin should see the pattern.

        Facepalm.

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin spews more nonsense …”

        You can’t avoid the point forever…

        Richard M wrote: “Martin, as I already explained to you several ways, removing just one El Nino event from a trend results in gibberish.”

        Let’s test your theory, Richard. We will leave out the El Nino in 1998, and since you claim an El Nino must be paired with a La Nina, we will leave out the La Nina in 1997. Recompute: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend

        The trend is up. Your deception fails.

      • Martin is working very hard to try and hold on to his belief system. However, we are making progress. His latest attempt:

        “Let’s test your theory, Richard. We will leave out the El Nino in 1998, and since you claim an El Nino must be paired with a La Nina, we will leave out the La Nina in 1997.”

        The reason I told Martin to look up Bjerknes feedback is because that is the mechanism that leads to a La Nina following an El Nino. The fact they are physically linked is why you can’t just eliminate the El Nino from a trend. If the El Nino had not happened then it is highly probable that neither would the La Nina. That would have eliminated the “dubious” high anomalies but it also would have eliminated all those “dubious” low anomalies associated with the La Nina. You would have been left a flat line right on the trend line and we’d have the same pause.

        Now Martin wants to eliminate the La Nina BEFORE the super 1998 El Nino. At least he now understands they are usually paired. And, if he would have just taken the time to understand ENSO and Bjerknes feedback maybe he wouldn’t have made such a silly request. D-K in action.

        Martin wants to remove a small La Nina with the super El Nino because he could see that if you remove the big La Nina you end up with the same pause. Sorry Martin, I live in the real world. Cause and effect. Just like a big wave has high crests and low troughs and a little wave has small ones. You don’t see waves with high crests and small troughs.

        BTW, this is also why the 2011 paper you linked to is laughable, anti-science nonsense. Stopping a trend in 2010 is more gibberish. If the authors were interested in science they would have ended the trend BEFORE the El Nino or after the paired La Nina that followed. Clearly, they were not doing science.

      • Richard, my belief system has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of scientific propositions. And I do understand Bjerknes feedback.

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • Martin comes back with a whole plethora of alarmist lies as his response. Sorry, pasting nonsense from Skeptical Science doesn’t hack it. Stick to the question at hand. I’ll give you one example but I could destroy every one of your points.

        “ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system.”

        Sure they do. They do it every single time. They are not driven by some magically consistent process. They can differ every time as the 1998 and 2016 El Nino events made perfectly obvious. It may all even out eventually but that could take 1000s of years. If you fell for that ridiculous nonsense then I feel sorry for you. You don’t appear to have the capability to think logically.

        Now back to the topic at hand.

        “You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere.”

        Future data points are in fact dependent on what happened in the past. I explained that to you and if you actually understood Bjerknes feedback you wouldn’t make sure silly claims. We are looking for a trend over time. And there are most certainly dependencies between what occurs over time. It is called auto-correlation. You would do well to learn a little science. You cannot pull out one years worth of data when that year most definitely led to what occurred in subsequent years.

        I’ll say it again. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. This is very simple. Your objections are obviously due to the fact you are in complete denial. Continuing to deny basic science only makes you look foolish.

      • I (Martin Smith) wrote: “ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system.”

        Richard M tries to respond: “Sure they do. They do it every single time. They are not driven by some magically consistent process. They can differ every time as the 1998 and 2016 El Nino events made perfectly obvious. It may all even out eventually but that could take 1000s of years. If you fell for that ridiculous nonsense then I feel sorry for you. You don’t appear to have the capability to think logically.”

        Richard, your statement about differing have nothing to do with ENSO and PDO adding to or taking energy from the system. ENSO and PDO transfer energy from the oceans to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the oceans. The atmosphere and the oceans are both inside the system. Therefore, transferring energy from one to the other does not add energy to the system, nor does it take it out of the system.

        Not only did you not “demolish” my point, you didn’t even address it.

        Richard M wrote: “Now back to the topic at hand.”

        …and then he did not get back to the topic at hand. These are the points. Address them if you will:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • Martin’s response; “The atmosphere and the oceans are both inside the system. Therefore, transferring energy from one to the other does not add energy to the system, nor does it take it out of the system.”

        It appears Martin doesn’t realize that when energy moves from the oceans to the atmosphere it next is radiated to space. In other words, it does take energy out of the system.

        I really didn’t realize anyone could be as dense as Martin appears to be. He clearly has no idea how the climate system works. And then copying the same long refuted Skeptical Science lies is hysterical. Martin couldn’t even respond with anything new.

        I’ve explained everything quite clearly to Martin and it is now clear his only response will be denial of basic science.

      • Richard M wrote: “It appears Martin doesn’t realize that when energy moves from the oceans to the atmosphere it next is radiated to space. In other words, it does take energy out of the system.”

        No, Richard. We know how much energy is radiated into space, because we measure it. The increased CO2 blocks the energy preventing it from leaving the system. Yes, some of it does leave, but that’s part of the amount that is already emitted. ENSO and the PDO are both part of the system, and they are cycles, so they don’t add energy to the system or subtract energy from the system. Now please address the points, if you will:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • Martin babbles more nonsense. Now he claims the energy buried deep in the PWP was going to leave the climate system without an El Nino. Does he even have a clue how silly this is?

        Here is a picture of the SSTs during the recent El Nino. Maybe Martin will tell us what happened to first cause the significant increase in temperature and then to cause all that energy to disappear.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/trend/offset

        Of course, real scientists do know what happened. Energy buried deep in the PWP was spread out over vast parts of the Pacific raising the average temperature and increasing evaporation. Almost all of that energy eventually was radiated to space and is now gone.

        This is a cooling event. Different El Nino events will lead to more or less cooling. The atmosphere is temporarily warmed as the energy is transported to space. Hence, more or stronger El Nino events will definitely cause changes in the “system”.

        This is true of all ocean cycles. They are not perfect cycles and will affect the system to varying degrees.

        As for CO2 blocking some of that energy. Of course it does. Very little though and even that little gain is offset by an almost equal loss due to a reduction in high altitude water vapor.

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin babbles more nonsense. Now he claims the energy buried deep in the PWP was going to leave the climate system without an El Nino.”

        I didn’t write that, Richard. You made it up. ENSO and PDO move energy from the sea into the air ad from the air into the sea. These processes do increase and decrease the global average temperature, but they do not add energy to the system or remove energy from the system. They just move the energy aroud in the system. Now, address these points if you can. If you can’t, just say you can’t:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • Martin now states: “ENSO and PDO move energy from the sea into the air ad from the air into the sea. These processes do increase and decrease the global average temperature, but they do not add energy to the system or remove energy from the system. ”

        That is complete and total nonsense. We know exactly HOW the energy is removed from the system during an El Nino. The warm water from the PWP spreads out over the Pacific and through radiation and evaporation that energy is moved into/through the atmosphere and eventually to space. It is 90+% a one way street. There is only a small path for back radiation to warm the water. It is so small it would be a round off error. Sorry but the energy is not moved around. It is moved out.

        So please inform the scientific world exactly how you recapture this energy and move it back into the ocean.

        You are so far out in left field that all I can do is chuckle at your nonsensical claims.

      • Richard M writes: “… and through radiation and evaporation that energy is moved into/through the atmosphere and eventually to space.”

        Nope. Now you are denying the greenhouse effect. Stop making up nonsense and address these points or admit you can’t:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

      • OMG Martin, you don’t even have the slightest clue about energy flows. Your statement:

        “Nope. Now you are denying the greenhouse effect. Stop making up nonsense and address these points or admit you can’t:”

        Is hilarious. You would have 100% of the energy trapped by GHGs???? Sorry, that qualifies as “not even wrong”. If this is your level of understanding I can only chuckle. Once again the D-K effect in action.

        The Earth receives ~240 w/m2 of energy from the sun each and every day. If GHGs trapped all of it, the planet would be an inferno in weeks. Of course, anyone who understands the energy budget of the planet also knows the Earth also radiates just as much energy back into space. The GHE from a doubling of CO2 only captures at most 3.7 w/m2. When you get an El Nino the planet’s surface and atmosphere warm up which means even more energy is radiated to space.

        ROTFLMAO.

      • Richard M wrote: ” You would have 100% of the energy trapped by GHGs?”

        Richard, you know what you wrote above is false because you know I wrote this: “We know how much energy is radiated into space, because we measure it.” So you deliberately misrepresented what I wrote, and you you did that because you are still trying to deceive the readers. Fortunately, I think they’re all gone now. It’s just you and me, and your argument has been proved wrong. We know the amount of energy emitted from earth because we measure it with satellites. You like satellites.

        Richard M wrote: “Of course, anyone who understands the energy budget of the planet also knows the Earth also radiates just as much energy back into space.”

        You are still denying the greenhouse effect. If your statement above were true, the earth would not be warming. But it IS warming, much faster than it would warm naturally. Actually, were it not for AGW, earth would be cooling now, but let that pass. Earth is not emitting “just as much energy back into space,” because: Global Warming continues.

        Richard M wrote: “When you get an El Nino the planet’s surface and atmosphere warm up which means even more energy is radiated to space.”

        You can say that for 1998, because 1998 was an extreme El Nino anomaly. In fact, that’s why you cherrypicked 1998 to be at the start of your 1997-2015 time period. But, Richard, when the atmosphere warms because of an El Nino, the atmosphere warms because of the El Nino. That means the energy is trapped in the atmosphere. When the atmosphere warms, the energy is still there. You are trying to imply the energy is gone. It’s not. It’s still there. So now you are arguing against your own argument. Here is why:

        After 1998, there are 2 weak El Ninos and 2 moderate El Ninos in your cherry picked interval. There are no other strong El Ninos. But there are 3 weak La Ninas in your cherrypicked interval, 2 moderate La Ninas, and 4 strong La Ninas. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
        So your cherry picked time interval contains 5 El Ninos (only 1 strong one right at the start) and 9 La Ninas (4 strong ones). 15 of the years in your cherrypicked interval were complete or partial La Nina years. That’s 15 out of 18. And you chose to start in 1997 because of the extreme El Nino in 1998.

        But as you are arguing now, more energy leaves earth during an El Nino, which means more energy stays on earth during La Nina years. Less energy than your mythical balanced energy budget is radiated back to space during La Nina years, and most of the years in your cherrypicked interval are La Nina years. And we know that during La Nina years, that extra energy that is not being radiated to space is being absorbed by the oceans. That’s warming, Richard. It is warming that doesn’t show in your cherrypicked UAH TLT data, because you are deliberately ignoring the 93% of the energy that goes into the oceans.

        And, as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 showed, when you remove the effects of El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability, the warming is still there; there was no pause.
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

        That proves your argument is wrong. But you still haven’t addressed these points. You say you have, but you have not:
        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

        Best of luck in your future endeavors.

      • LMAO. Now Martin tries to blame me for his nonsense comment. Then, he repeats his inane claim.

        “when the atmosphere warms because of an El Nino, the atmosphere warms because of the El Nino. That means the energy is trapped in the atmosphere. ”

        No, it doesn’t. It means energy is continually transferred from the oceans into the atmosphere and then the atmosphere into space. The oceans are very warm and it can take several years for this to happen. You can clearly see it recent with SSTs. It took a full 4 years but now all the energy has disappeared from the last El Nino.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.1/to/trend/offset

        Next comes this gem:

        “We know the amount of energy emitted from earth because we measure it with satellites.”

        Yes we do, and because of that we know the amount of energy radiated to space goes up during El Nino events just like I told you. It is not magically trapped in the atmosphere as you just claimed. Yes, the atmosphere warms during this time because much of the energy is latent heat which must first be transferred into the atmosphere through condensation before it can be radiated away.

        Then Martin says “But as you are arguing now, more energy leaves earth during an El Nino, which means more energy stays on earth during La Nina years. ”

        That is correct. I’m simply relating facts to you. This is basic science. Then …

        “And we know that during La Nina years, that extra energy that is not being radiated to space is being absorbed by the oceans. That’s warming”

        That’s one theory. In reality La Nina events are no different than any other non El Nino period. It is just a period with stronger trade winds and therefore more upwelling cold water takes place. I do believe the Earth is warming during La Nina events because there will probably be fewer clouds and thus more solar absorption (notice no greenhouse effect is needed). This is still open science.

        Now you appear to accept that El Nino and La Nina events cause warming and cooling just like I told you. You even indicate that more La Nina events will lead to warming by saying:

        “That’s warming”

        Isn’t that what I told you right at the start of this discussion? I told you that ENSO can affect the global atmospheric temperature. You denied it. Now, it appears you are starting to catch on. However, you seemed to think that you can just count El Nino events and La Nina events and gain knowledge. Nope, it’s more difficult. El Nino events tend to be much stronger than La Nina events. And, many other processes are also taking place.

        Now, keep in mind we were discussing the global atmospheric temperature data. This is not the same as the global energy which would also need to measure the energy in the oceans (which we cannot measure accurately). However, one good proxy for the oceans is the SSTs. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good satellite measure there either.

        I recently read a paper that reconstructed SSTs in one area for the last few centuries. They found the SSTs have been increasing for 400 years. So, why would anyone think humans are now the cause? You would need to understand the mechanism for the natural warming and then subtract that from human warming. Can you do that, Martin? Of course not and neither can anyone else.

        So, what we know is the oceans have been warming for a long time and it is likely that has led to natural warming of the atmosphere just like happens with El Nino. We also know during the last 20 years that, except for temporary warming and cooling from ENSO, the atmosphere stopped warming despite what climate models project.

        Like it or not that means there is no evidence to support the claims that CO2 emissions will warm the planet.

      • Richard M wrote: “Like it or not that means there is no evidence to support the claims that CO2 emissions will warm the planet.”

        That’s a direct denial of the greenhouse effect, without which, the planet would be more than 30C colder than it is now and there would be no human race. So you are still denying basic physics. Nevertheless, your conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Stop avoiding the subject.

        Richard M wrote: “So, what we know is the oceans have been warming for a long time and it is likely that has led to natural warming of the atmosphere just like happens with El Nino.”

        Very good, Richard, but that is a point not in dispute. The oceans absorb about 93% of the energy that reaches earth and is not radiated back to space. That process is accelerating because of the rise in Anthropogenic CO2., which blocks more and more energy from radiating back to space. Instead, it reflects it back down to the surface, where the oceans absorb more ad more of it. So you argued for a point that was not in dispute.

        By the way, you have proved there was no pause, since most of the years in your cherrypicked time interval were La Nina years and you have concluded the oceans absorb more heat in La Nina years.

        Richard M wrote: “In reality La Nina events are no different than any other non El Nino period.”

        You can’t get away with that. You have previously argue here that La Ninas are opposites of El Ninos; they come in pairs, and they must paired in the statistical analysis. That’s wrong, but it is what you have already claimed (see below), so you can’t also argue against your own argument.

        Now please address the subject of this thread, which is explained below. You continue to avoid the real issue.

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

        Best of luck in your future endeavors.

      • Martin claims:

        “That’s a direct denial of the greenhouse effect ”

        which once again demonstrates he is scientifically illiterate. Here’s an analogy. We know when water is placed out in air with a RH of less than 100% that it will evaporate. When I tell you that all of water in the world is not going to evaporate and leave the oceans dry, am I denying the basic physics that water evaporates?

        The answer is of course no. But that is essentially the only thought that crossed your feeble mind when I mentioned adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not causing warming.. Unlike you, I am open to our atmosphere being more complex than your simplistic mind thinks.

        Martin then repeats this silly propaganda:

        “Anthropogenic CO2., which blocks more and more energy from radiating back to space. Instead, it reflects it back down to the surface, where the oceans absorb more ad more of it.  ”

        LOL. CO2 does not “block energy” nor “reflect energy”. It absorbs energy within certain frequency domains and transfers that energy to other molecules through kinetic energy transfers well over 99.999% of the time. In addition the oceans only absorb LW radiation to a depth of a few microns. This may cause warming of the skin but also leads to enhanced evaporation which is a cooling process removing heat from the ocean.

        You should try to learn to understand the science.

        Now, CO2 also occasionally gains energy through kinetic transfers and radiates that energy with a little less than half directed back to the surface. Adding more CO2 molecules with increase this process. Of course, CO2 is also radiating energy towards space and adding more CO2 molecules also increases this process. I doubt Martin is even aware of this fact.

        All things being equal the net result of these actions would be a warming of ~1 C per each doubling of CO2. Hardly worth any concern. Your climate priests tell us we’ve already seen this much warming. But, all things are not equal and this is where the debate rages.

        Your climate priests claim this warming is more than tripled mainly through positive water vapor feedback. What real scientists tell us is this is nonsense and some scientists even believe this value is reduced significantly due to negative water vapor feedback.

        Here’s how it works. Increases in CO2 leads to increases in IR radiation to the surface. The holy greenhouse effect. This radiation has a high probability of striking a water molecule which then increases the probability of evaporation. Since water vapor is lighter than air this will also enhance convection. Basic physics. Speeding up convection will drive convecting air columns higher in the troposphere which will lead to more of that water vapor being condensed into clouds and rain. Basic physics.

        You end up with more clouds reflecting solar energy and less high altitude water vapor which makes the air denser and also enhances convection.

        Did you get this? Less water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, right at the place where it has the most effect. Both of these are negative feedbacks.

        Now, did you see me denying the greenhouse effect at any time? Nope. All I did was show the system is far more complex than you imagined. All I had to do is use simple physics and the net effect could be no warming at all or even cooling. However, since convection occurs most during the day, we should see cooler days and some warming at night. This also means warmer winters and cooler summers.

        Now it appears Martin agrees with me that ENSO can affect the global temperature. He says:

        “By the way, you have proved there was no pause, since most of the years in your cherrypicked time interval were La Nina years and you have concluded the oceans absorb more heat in La Nina years. ”

        As I told you you cannot simply use time by itself to understand the climate effects of ENSO. However, if we assume you are right then you should also be aware that from 1977-1998 we has more El Nino influence than La Nina influence. That would mean the warming over that period is exaggerated. So instead of a 20 years warming period followed by a 20 year pause, you end up with 40 years with a very low warming rate. Doesn’t exactly help your case. And, now we get into the AMO and PDO which have been predominately in their respective warm phases over that 40 year period and the millennial cycle that has seen warming since the LIA.

        Next Martin spews this lie:

        “You have previously argue here that La Ninas are opposites of El Ninos; they come in pairs, and they must paired in the statistical analysis.  ”

        I did no such thing. I explained that they generally come in pairs. I never said always. However, when they do come in pairs then you need to keep that association. You cannot pull out one year and have anything representing reality. And, they aren’t really opposites. It is far more complex than that which is why your simplistic thinking always fails.

      • Richard M makes yet another ad hominem attack: “[Martin Smith] is scientifically illiterate.”

        Richard, this is your belief. It is what you wrote: ““Like it or not that means there is no evidence to support the claims that CO2 emissions will warm the planet.”

        Your statement can only be true if the physics of the greenhouse effect are wrong. But those physics are correct. You are denying the greenhouse effect.

        Richard M denied his own statements: “I did no such thing.”

        Yes, you did. The proof is in the thread above. Please stop avoiding the subject. Here it is. You have not addressed these points:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

        Best of luck in your future endeavors.

      • Poor Martin didn’t like being called a science illiterate yet he has proven it over and over again. Sorry, but telling the truth is not an ad hominem. It simply is.

        The rest of your last comment is nothing but more lies. I explained everything to you in simple to verify scientific terms. Obviously, you couldn’t understand a word of it. It appears you aren’t just scientifically illiterate, you are also too slow to grasp simple concepts..

        Thanks for proving once again that climate true believers are among the densest people on the planet.

      • Richard M wrote: “Poor Martin didn’t like being called a science illiterate…”

        Enough of your ad hominem and dissembling. Address the subject of this discussion. The points listed below. If you can’t, then Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 proves there was no pause: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

        Here are the points you must address:

        1. You say the data points in your graph of UAH TLT data from 1997 to 2015 cannot be extracted and looked at as a simple sequence of data points having nothing to do with temperature in the troposphere. But that’s exactly what your tool does. See it again: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend
        You enter a start year and an end year. The tool then loads the data for the selected years and performs a simple linear regression, which will always compute a straight line through the data. It doesn’t matter what the data is, SLR always computes a straight line through the data. So if we remove the data point for 1998, which is way high abnormally, and which is only the 2nd year in your 18 year period, and then run the tool again, it changes the line it computes quite a lot. Instead of being flat, it rises quite a lot. That is because the El Nino in 1998 was an extreme anomaly, and yes, we can remove one data point. And yes, I know your tool is displaying monthly data, but we can remove the entire 12 months. We can do that; the result really is meaningful. It disproves your claim because without the extreme anomaly of 1998, there was no pause.

        2. You say El Nino must be paired with a La Nina for removal from the data, but your tool doesn’t care. In fact, you violated your own rule by starting with a weak La Nina in 1997.

        3. But there can be more than one La Nina between El Ninos, and there can be no La Ninas between El Ninos, so when you say they must be removed from the data in pairs, you are making that up.

        4. Neither El Ninos nor La Ninas begin on January 1st and end on December 31st. They begin and end any time, but your tool only selects data by year, so it doesn’t support what you are trying to argue.

        5. What you are trying to argue is that ENSO and PDO caused your alleged pause and are causing what is known as AGW. But that can’t be correct. ENSO and PDO are cycles. They don’t add energy to the system, nor do they take energy out of the system. Nor do they prevent energy from leaving the system. Therefore, while they certainly do contribute to natural variation in the global average temperature, they cannot cause an upward trend or a downward trend in global average temperature.

        6. About 93% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space is absorbed by the oceans and by melting of the icecaps. Your UAH TLT data only measures what happens in the lower troposphere, which accounts for less than 7% of the energy from the sun that reaches earth and is not reemitted back to space. That process of 93% of the energy being absorbed by the oceans and by melting ice did not stop during your alleged pause. It didn’t slow down. There is evidence that it increased. Therefore, you cannot say (even if your alleged pause in UAH TLT is statistically significant) that it means global warming paused.

        7. When there is an El Nino where an abnormal amount of energy is released from the Pacific Ocean around the equator, or when there is a La Nina and the reverse happens, it doesn’t mean the oceans are releasing or absorbing that amount of energy everywhere. In fact, most of the ocean areas continue to absorb that 93% of the energy reaching earth that is not reemitted back to space. In fact, the oceans continue to absorb energy even during El Nino, just not where El Nino is.

        8. You say this paper (https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
        by Foster and Rahmstorf is wrong (I forget what you called it), but they are both professional scientists, one a statistician, the other a climate scientist, and their paper was peer reviewed and publish. You provided no argument that shows their analysis is wrong.

        9. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removes the ENSO effect from the entire UAH TLT dataset, and from all the other datasets as well. They also remove the effects of variations in aerosols and variations in solar irradiance. Your tool doesn’t do any of this. Your tool uses data that you admit contain these noise causing effects. You even imply that the alleged pause depends on ENSO. But ENSO can’t cause warming or cooling. It only exchanges energy between the ocean and the lower atmosphere.

        10. Finally, after all this, you still have not stated what the alleged pause means scientifically. If we assume the pause was statistically significant and scientifically meaningful, as you demand, then what is the scientific meaning of the pause?

        Best of luck in your future endeavors.

      • Martin, why should I address long refuted nonsense from a cartoonist’s website when you have proven you won’t understand my comments. Are you 12 years old? If you can’t understand what I explained to you above then there is zero chance you will understand when I explain anything else that relates to climate.

        BTW, I already answered your point 10. Since you keep asking I assume you aren’t even reading my comments except for the first sentence or two. Act like a troll and you will be treated like a troll.

      • Richard M wrote: “Martin, why should I address long refuted nonsense from a cartoonist’s website when you have proven you won’t understand my comments.”

        Richard, every one of your posts in this thread has been a Gish Gallup. You have used the Gish Gallup because you CAN’t address the subjects of this thread, which are: (a) Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 have shown that when El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability are removed from the datasets (including your cherrypicked UAH TLT version 6.0, there was no pause/hiatus/slowdown. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 proves that the global warming signal is still there; and (b) If we assume, despite having seen the proof that there was no pause, that there was a pause, what is the scientific significance of that pause?

        Foster and Rahmstorf 2011: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

        Richard M wrote: “I already answered your point 10.”

        I believe you did not. But if you put your answer at the end of one of your Gish Gallup’s it is possible I missed it. If so, I won’t apologize, because your purpose in using so many Gish Gallups is to hide responses you can’t support with facts, so you can say later, as you have now said: “I already answered your point 10.”

        So I believe you have not addressed either point (a) or point (b) above. I know you have not addressed point (a). If you have addressed point (b) and I missed it, I do apologize, but please cut and paste your answer here, because I can’t find it anywhere. And please address point (a).

        BTW, what scientists do in their spare time has nothing to do with the truth of their science.

  21. https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Physical-Chemistry-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Absorption.html

    I finally found one of the warmists scientific explanations of CO2 warming. They are few and far between cause remember the IPCC has always depended on computer models. It makes for fascinating reading mainly because of his unproven assumptions (CO2 promotes forcing of more water vapour, 400ppm is enough to increase temp… etc) which all warmists have. But particularly interesting is that even though he is a PhD in chemistry he makes the following statement. “These conclusions are not based on the earth’s temperature history or upon complex computer programs (which I certainly believe to be of great importance ”

    The fact that a PhD in chemistry would rely on any computer simulated climate model simply boggles my mind. The human race is in trouble if we are producing PhDs who place great importance on computer climate models. They are the reason why we have got into this CO2 mess.

    He also makes a number of mistakes
    1) “It turns out that at equilibrium all matter emits radiation the distribution of which is determined only by its temperature.”

    The above is false because no blackbody behaves the same as any other blackbody they all have a different emissivity coefficient.

    2) “So the very fact that we can report a temperature for a given place at a given day, and we routinely do that at any place on any day, means that the earth at that time and place is close enough to being in thermal equilibrium that we are justified in talking about its temperature.”

    The above logic boggles the mind. There can be temperature changes of 10 C in one hour at any place on the earth. So how can their be an equilibrium? If he is talking about a global equilibrium even that is not possible if his GHG theory is correct. Because runaway global warming or global warming of any kind is not an equilibrium.

    3) “What we believe, and it has been borne out by many studies, is that in general we can do two different things: we can make a number of measurements, reach conclusions based upon those measurements and then average the conclusions, or we can average the measurements and reach conclusions based upon that average measurement. For example we could measure the temperatures at a very large number of places on the earth and 1. Use Planck’s law to calculate the energy radiated at each point and then average or, 2. Average the temperature and use that temperature with Planck’s law to calculate the radiated energy. What has been found is that the final results are essentially the same.”

    The above paragraph is laughable. In the 1st case you can only reach conclusions if you plot all the measurements and then take averages or trends or use stats for confidence inertvals …etc. You cannot average conclusions. In the 2nd case you had better have a wide coverage of the area you are measuring with very many measuring stations and no outside extraneous effects like urban heat islands( which by the way all GISS measurements are contaminated with).

    4) “The earth’s spatially averaged temperature, when averaged over a year, comes out to be 288K. The balance: energy in = energy out for the earth for a year results because if the energy in from the sun (corrected for albedo) during a year were greater than the energy radiating out from the earth then the earth’s average temperature would rise and, according to Planck’s Law, the earth would radiate more energy and reestablish the balance. ”

    The above paragraph seems to support the idea that we have nothing to worry about. If the earth automatically readjusts its IR emittance to rebalance the temperature equilibrium then what in the hell is he promoting?

    5) ” Thus the one piece of information that is lacking at this point is NL/V of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ”

    What he really meant was N/V. The L is the wave length of the frequency of the IR.

    6) “Because one half of the reemitted radiation comes back to the earth ”

    A statement with no supporting evidence.

    7) ” this flux is equal to one half the Planck flux in the absorbing interval multiplied by one minus the diffuse, broadband transmittance. ” ………”The energy leaving at the final time equals the energy entering at that time (for the reason discussed previously) and, because we know by how much that energy is increased by the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, we know by how much the earth’s temperature is increased by that effect.”

    The above assumes that all of the extra flux collides with N2 or the O2 molecules and that none of it escapes to the upper atmosphere and then to space. it doesnt consider the role of clouds nor of water vapour through its own absorption of the extra heat flux. He further ignores condensation.

    8) “When the calculation is done, as in GWPPT6, the conclusion is that the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year because of the greenhouse gas effect of the additional carbon dioxide entering the earth’s atmosphere.”

    Soooooooooooo what 1.4 degrees in 100 years would be a good thing. Much more plant vegetation and stuff to eat. I cant for the life of me figure out what is scary in all this? And that assumes that he is correct in the temperature rise. I predict that in the next 100 years we will probably see a fall in average temperatures rather than a small rise that he is predicting. Why did politicians buy into a non scary rise of 1.4 degrees in a century?

    • 1. “because no blackbody behaves the same as any other blackbody they all have a different emissivity coefficient”
      “Blackbody” means emissivity is 1.

      2. “There can be temperature changes of 10 C in one hour at any place on the earth. So how can their be an equilibrium?”
      He is talking about local thermodynamic equilibrium. In the quote, you cut off the lead-in sentence:
      “This can be seen immediately when you realize that to say that something is “at thermal equilibrium” means that it has a temperature and vice versa.”
      LTE is indeed the requirement for having a defined temperature.

      3. “You cannot average conclusions.”
      The “conclusion” is the implied radiative flux. You can average that. All they are saying is that you get the same answer whether you calculate the flux and then average, or average the temperature and calculate the flux. Well, you do.

      4.” If the earth automatically readjusts its IR emittance to rebalance the temperature equilibrium”
      He’s talking about the temperature rising to rebalance flux equilibrium.

      5. “What he really meant was N/V”
      No, he means NL/V. N is transmittance per unit wavelength, so you have to integrate over avelengths.

      6. “A statement with no supporting evidence.”
      He is simply saying that re-emission is not directional. On average half goes up, half down.

      7. “all of the extra flux collides with N2 or the O2 molecules”
      No, it’s just heat balance; calculating the effect of what didn’t get out. There is no implication that it is a radiative flux that could “collide”. Not that thermal can.

      8. “non scary rise of 1.4 degrees in a century”
      That is just the CO2 component. But they quote the current annual rate; it is likely to increase. And even if not, we can’t maintain 1.4°/century for ever.

      • 1. There is really no such thing as a blackbody. So we are really talking grey bodies that all have different emissivity coefficients. I used the term blackbody because everyone else does.

        2. There can be an equilbrium with an enclosed system with no heat entry or escape. Other than that equilibriums dont exist especially when talking about the weather.

        3.You will never get the same answer with those 2 methods. The temperatures you add up and average will always be from a different refence point than the flux you calculate.A further problem is that it would be impossible to calculate this flux at any point of time because you would have to have a million different measurements of the flux on the earths surface.
        4. Th earth would not radiate more temperature. You would get an increase in evaporation from the oceans with an increase in water vapour and eventually an increase in condensation.
        5) The author defined N/V as the concentration. N cannot be both the number of molecules and the transmittance per unit wavelength.
        6. And you also mean that half goes each sideways? Obviously clouds and water vapour absorptions and n2 collisions and O2 collisions rear their ugly heads.
        7.At the same time that this flux contained within the CO2 is in the atmosphere some of the CO2 is colliding with N2orO2 molecules. So you cant really get a heat balance equation that is to any degree accurate.
        8.
        He did not talk about water vapour so we cant argue in this thread about the details of any temperature change that might make. But at 1.4 degrees per century maybe in 5 centuries we might start worrying about overheating but believe me we will have a mini ice age long before that.

  22. I think those of you arguing that there is/was an 18 year pause have painted yourselves into a corner. Assuming the alleged pause exists, and given that there have been many pauses before it (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), why are you saying THIS most recent pause means AGW is wrong, when none of the other pauses before it (see the link) meant AGW is wrong?

    • The “Pause” argument emerged when real world temperature exited the error bar band of IPCC. Obviously, since IPCC had painted this band on previous pauses that were known at the time, that didn’t allow to question the same discrepancy.

      About this escalator graph:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/31/a-ground-breaking-new-paper-putting-climate-models-to-the-test-yields-an-unexpected-result-steps-and-pauses-in-the-climate-signal/
      Funny, isn’t it? Looks like true AGW believers are now arguing that the view Tamino mocked as a fool trick of crackpots deniars, is actually correct. I grab my popcorn and watch the fight from afar.

      Note the similarity with those older questions (don’t bother to answer, that’s not the place)

      1) Assuming the alleged warming exists, and given that there have been many bigger, faster, warming before it [insert graph at different time scale: millennia, tens of millennia, millions of years…] , why are you saying THIS most recent warming means AGW is the only explanation, when none of the other before required it?

      2) Assuming the alleged warming exists, and given that there have been many periods of higher temperature before it [insert graph at different time scale: millennia, tens of millennia, millions of years…] , why are you saying THIS most recent warming means endangers the Planet, when none of the other before did ?

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “Funny, isn’t it? Looks like true AGW believers are now arguing that the view Tamino mocked as a fool trick of crackpots deniars, is actually correct. I grab my popcorn and watch the fight from afar.”

        Tamino didn’t walk step-wise warming. Tamino proved that your alleged pause is not statistically significant. This new paper doesn’t change that.

        paqyfelyc wrote: “1) Assuming the alleged warming exists, and given that there have been many bigger, faster, warming before it [insert graph at different time scale: millennia, tens of millennia, millions of years…] , why are you saying THIS most recent warming means AGW is the only explanation, when none of the other before required it?”

        We don’t have to assume alleged warming exists. The alleged warming has been observed. The alleged warming is also apparent in the satellite data you prefer. AGW is the only possible explanation for the most recent warming because the other warmings you refer too that occurred over “millennia, tens of millennia, millions of years,” required millennia, tens of millennia, and millions of years to happen, while the current warming has occurred over 100+ years. That means the causes of those much slower warmings can’t have caused the most recent warming. The only cause that explains the data is AGW.

        paqyfelyc wrote: “2) Assuming the alleged warming exists, and given that there have been many periods of higher temperature before it [insert graph at different time scale: millennia, tens of millennia, millions of years…] , why are you saying THIS most recent warming means endangers the Planet, when none of the other before did ?”

        No one says the current warming endangers the planet. The current warming endangers the human race (and other species). The reason the previous warm periods with “higher temperature” didn’t endanger the human race is the human race didn’t exist yet, when those warmer warm periods occurred.

        Note that I addressed your points immediately, while you have yet to address the one Sheldon Walker raised by arguing that the alleged pause was statistically significant: This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • No one says the current warming endangers the planet. The current warming endangers the human race (and other species). The reason the previous warm periods with “higher temperature” didn’t endanger the human race is the human race didn’t exist yet, when those warmer warm periods occurred.

        ?? Not true.
        The previous warm periods actually killed exactly what species at what time?
        If sea level rise is 2 mm per year, how is the human race threatened?
        If man’s release of CO2 increases plant growth (food, fuel, fodder, and feed are increased) by 12 – 27% over previous years, exactly how is the human race threatened by warmer temperatures with greater CO2?

        Last month’s global average temperature was less than 0.3 degrees above that reported for the mid-1970’s. What harm has this actually caused to date?

        Artificially limiting CO2 emissions by artificially increasing fossil fuel prices and artificially restricting fossil fuel use worldwide will absolutely kill millions of innocents worldwide, will save no lives, and will harm 6 billions more economically and physically. Yet that guaranteed harm to many for many years has only a possibility of potentially reduce future temperature rises by less than 1/2 of one degree. Why do you call for those deaths and that harm?

        Is it for the trillions in carbon futures trading the global bankers seek?

        Also: You showed a graphic from skeptical science claiming evidence of many previous pauses. But then you also claim the models predict those pauses – but the graphic is merely plots of past actual temperatures stair-stepping upwards. The plots models predicting future pauses are not shown.

      • RACookPE1978 wrote: “?? Not true.The previous warm periods actually killed exactly what species at what time?”
        You misread. No one is saying AGW will kill the human race. AGW endangers the human race. It already is endangering people in many places with bigger, longer, and drier droughts, bigger, longer, and deeper floods, bigger and wetter storms, sea level rise, etc. And yes, some species will die because AGW happens too fast for them to evolve. Coral is one possibility.

        Note that I answered your question immediately, while you have yet to address the one Sheldon Walker raised by arguing that the alleged pause was statistically significant: This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • Not true.

        From your link, this is the actual abstract of that paper:

        Abstract
        The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998-2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Nino/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

        Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase | Request PDF. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase [accessed Feb 15 2018].

        They selectively picked certain models, then selectively analyzed only those models that artificially pre-created (simulated) only those future ENSO periods that were “in phase” with the selected models, then analyzed the result to see if a “short pause” was observed.

        Sort of like selecting 75 answers from 77 replies from 2 questions out of 5 asked in one survey from 3500 self-selected survey results from 13,500 members to claim 97% of all scientists believe CAGW is occurring!

      • RACookPE1978 wrote: “They selectively picked certain models, then selectively analyzed only those models that artificially pre-created (simulated) only those future ENSO periods that were “in phase” with the selected models, then analyzed the result to see if a “short pause” was observed.”

        Obviously, models that don’t include ENSO can’t be used to predict a “pause” caused in large part by ENSO. And obviously, given the complaining by you all that the climate models did not predict your alleged “pause,” only those models that used ENSO phasing that coincided with the real ENSO had to be used to see if their outputs would produce your alleged “pause.”

        RACookPE1978 wrote: “Sort of like selecting…”
        No, it was exactly what you all demanded, as explained above.

      • RACookPE1978 wrote: “If sea level rise is 2 mm per year, how is the human race threatened?”
        See south Florida for an example.

        RACookPE1978 wrote: “If man’s release of CO2 increases plant growth (food, fuel, fodder, and feed are increased) by 12 – 27% over previous years, exactly how is the human race threatened by warmer temperatures with greater CO2?”
        Increasing temperature caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2 already is endangering people in many places with bigger, longer, and drier droughts, bigger, longer, and deeper floods, bigger and wetter storms, sea level rise, etc.

        RACookPE1978 wrote: “Last month’s global average temperature was less than 0.3 degrees above that reported for the mid-1970’s. What harm has this actually caused to date?”
        See the answer to your previous question above.

        RACookPE1978 wrote: “Why do you call for those deaths and that harm?”
        Now that renewable energy is competitive with oil and coal, taxing CO2 at the source with a revenue-neutral carbon tax that is redistributed to all citizens equally, will not cause the deaths and harm you are implying it would cause. BTW, oil and gas have indeed caused a lot of deaths and harm.

        Note that I answered your questions immediately, while you have yet to address the one Sheldon Walker raised by arguing that the alleged pause was statistically significant: This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “The “Pause” argument emerged when real world temperature exited the error bar band of IPCC.”
        I don’t think the real world temperature exited the error bar, but if we assume it did, that doesn’t mean AGW is wrong. The error bar is based on probability. It says the global average temperature will remain within the error bar with 95% probability, but it CAN go outside the error bar range, below or above the limits. It is currently inside the error bar.

    • @Martin Smith
      “I don’t think the real world temperature exited the error bar, but if we assume it did, that doesn’t mean AGW is wrong. ”
      Yes, once again you are saying that AGW can never be wrong, that it is not science. I praise your constancy.
      In physics, they use several sigma to validate a theory. It must had been be 5 sigma outside a random event to validate recent breakthrough.
      You are saying AGW doesn’t even need a single sigma.
      Not science. QED

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “…once again you are saying that AGW can never be wrong, that it is not science.”
        I said no such thing. AGW is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. There is no viable alternative explanation that accounts for even most of the data. If you disagree, start a discussion about your alternative theory of global warming. In the meantime, please address this point, raised by Sheldon Walker by arguing that the alleged pause was statistically significant:

        This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

  23. Richard M wrote: “Santer et al in trying to support your beliefs actually found out that pauses over 17 years in length were out side the 95% confidence level. So, an 18 year pause is scientifically meaningful.”

    Richard, I have asked several times now for you to say what that meaning is. You have stated again that your alleged pause is scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

    The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47), so (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many of so-called pauses before this one you claim is scientifically meaningful.

    Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

    • @Martin Smith
      “I’m sorry, are you now also cherrypicking years you will accept papers from? ”
      I’m sorry, are you still again building some strawman argument, as a diversion from your failure to deliver?
      Still waiting for the prediction you claim exist. Remember: a prediction is made BEFORE having knowledge of the predicted, not after
      (I Don’t even believe I had to write that, and have to repeat that…but I did! )
      So far, you provided no prediction. I predict you won’t. Never.
      Actually, notorious deniar Mann even wrote a paper saying you cannot, as this was unpredictable, according to him.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/11/study-by-mann-admits-the-pause-in-global-warming-was-not-predictable-but-lets-models-off-the-hook/

      Already answered you, several time

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/10/the-global-warming-cure/#comment-2741695
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/10/the-global-warming-cure/#comment-2742899
      (the middle, right after my quoting you that miss quotation mark)
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/10/the-global-warming-cure/#comment-2743452
      (second last paragraph)
      What don’t you understand in this?

      “The only explanation for the temperature rise we have seen over the last 100+ years is AGW. ”
      Blatantly false, and doubly so
      False, because the number of possible explanation is very long (sun, clouds, microbes, ocean…), and we don’t have 100+ years of data to rule them out.
      False, because so-called GHG forcing just don’t match with warming. Speaking of the pause: human GHG emission accelerated, so much so that the period accounted for ~1/3 of the total. You need to add lots of unexplainium, feedback etc. to have GW and AGW match. Occam advise to stick to unexplainium alone, in such case, since you need it anyway.

      “The way you disprove AGW is to propose a different theory that accounts for all the data and that makes better predictions about the future than AGW. ”
      QED. That is the kind of reasoning to support God interventions, Cupidon, witchcraft, conspiracy theory, alien abduction, etc. since we lack other theories to explain miracles, falling in love, streak of (mis)fortune, many dramatic events, strange disappearance … You just placed AWG on par with these. And you were right, All these beliefs are alike. Not falsifiable, not science, fallacies based.

      Science, on the other hand, don’t need to have a better theory to drop a failed one. Physicists just dropped a theory about Dark matter, but they still have no better.
      In science, the way you disprove a theory is just to expose it shortcoming. Period. If you already have an alternative theory, just fine; if you don’t, you proceed to find another. Well, if you need it, of course.

    • @Martin Smith
      “I’m sorry, are you now also cherrypicking years you will accept papers from? ”
      I’m sorry, are you still again building some strawman argument, as a diversion from your failure to deliver?
      Still waiting for the prediction you claim exist. Remember: a prediction is made BEFORE having knowledge of the predicted, not after
      (I Don’t even believe I had to write that, and have to repeat that…but I did! )
      So far, you provided no prediction. I predict you won’t. Never. The fun is, even is you did, Mann already disagree that this prediction was even valid, as, according to him, it was just not predictable.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/11/study-by-mann-admits-the-pause-in-global-warming-was-not-predictable-but-lets-models-off-the-hook/
      Funny, isn’t it?

    • Already answered you, several time
      February 12, 2018 at 4:46 am
      February 13, 2018 at 9:24 am
      February 13, 2018 at 8:50 pm (second last paragraph)
      What don’t you understand in this? Why do you still repeat the very same question, already answered ?

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “Already answered you, several time”

        No. Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • You are acting like a child who, when asking “2+2= ?” and answered “4”, says “no, you didn’t adress my question, so I repeat again, 2+2= ?”
        Not sure what can be done for you.

        May be, to begin with, state the scientific meaning of your question?

    • “The only explanation for the temperature rise we have seen over the last 100+ years is AGW. ”
      Blatantly false, and doubly so
      * False, because the number of possible explanation is very long (sun, clouds, microbes, ocean…), and we don’t have 100+ years of data to rule them out.
      * False, because so-called GHG forcing just don’t match with warming. Speaking of the pause: human GHG emission accelerated, so much so that the period accounted for ~1/3 of the total. You need to add lots of unexplainium, and assumptions about the inside working of the climate blackbox (feedback etc.) to have GW and AGW match. Occam advise to stick to unexplainium and assumptions about the inside working of the climate blackbox, in such case, since you need them anyway.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “the number of possible explanation is very long (sun, clouds, microbes, ocean…), and we don’t have 100+ years of data to rule them out.”

        Those aren’t explanations of global warming. You have simply listed items that affect global climate. The sun and the ocean are both accounted for in AGW, and their contributions are fairly well understood, so again you can’t claim the established science of the climate roles played by the sun and oceans is wrong without proposing an alternative explanation for those roles that fits the data. The affect of clouds on global warming is more of an unknown; there are both positive and negative feedbacks caused by clouds, but these are feedbacks, paq, not original drivers. If there is increasing cloud cover it is because warmer air holds more water. The cosmic ray idea is understood well enough to know that they are not affecting cloud cover enough to make a difference in global temperature. Microbes have caused major climate changes in the past, and they will again, possibly, if we don’t stop AGW, but we know they are not causing the current warming.

        paqyfelyc wrote: “so-called GHG forcing just don’t match with warming.”

        Yes it does. Please stay on topic: Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • @Martin Smith
        Now you are ridiculous. YOU put some topic on the table, not me. I just answered you, and when I did, you accuse me of being out of topic…
        If the topic you put on the table was out of topic, what is the topic, then?

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “what is the topic, then?”

        This is the topic: Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • Don’t trunk my sentence. My question wasn’t “what was the topic?” , it was “If the topic you put on the table was out of topic, what is the topic, then?”
        You didn’t answer. I want to know how the topic could simultaneously be the topic (when you claim something), and not the topic (when you get answer to your claim).

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “If the topic you put on the table was out of topic, what is the topic, then?”

        I didn’t put a topic on the table. I have continuously tried to put this discussion BACK on topic AFTER your attempts, and the attempts of Richard M and RACookPE1978, to divert the topic to something else. THIS IS THE TOPIC: Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

    • “The way you disprove AGW is to propose a different theory that accounts for all the data and that makes better predictions about the future than AGW. ”
      QED. That is the kind of reasoning to support G0d interventions, Cupidon, w!tchcraft, consp!racy theory, al!en abduction, etc. since we lack other theories to explain miracles, falling in love, streak of (mis)fortune, many dramatic events, strange disappearance … You just placed AWG on par with these. And you were right, All these beliefs are alike. Not falsifiable, not science, fallacies based.

      Science, on the other hand, don’t need to have a better theory to drop a failed one. Physicists just dropped a theory about Dark matter, but they still have no better.
      In science, the way you disprove a theory is just to expose it shortcoming. Period. If you already have an alternative theory, just fine; if you don’t, you proceed to find another. Well, if you need it, of course.

    • “The way you disprove AGW is to propose a different theory that accounts for all the data and that makes better predictions about the future than AGW. ”
      QED. That is the kind of reasoning to support supernatural interventions and illuminati plots, since we lack other theories to explain miracles, falling in love, streak of (mis)fortune, many dramatic events … You just placed AWG on par with these. And you were right, All these beliefs are alike. Not falsifiable, not science, fallacies based.

      Science, on the other hand, doesn’t need to have a better theory to drop a failed one. Physicists just dropped a theory about Dark matter, but they still have no better.
      In science, the way you disprove a theory is just to expose it shortcoming. Period. If you already have an alternative theory, just fine; if you don’t, you proceed to find another. Well, if you need it, of course.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “That is the kind of reasoning to support supernatural interventions and illuminati plots, since we lack other theories to explain miracles, falling in love, streak of (mis)fortune, many dramatic events …”

        There is nothing to respond to there. It reads like gibber to me. AGW is the only theory that explains the current global warming. It is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. It’s projections match observations quite well. No other possible explanation we know of comes close. That’s why AGW is the theory used for explaining the current global warming. The way you disprove AGW is by finding a better theory.

        I await your proposal. In the meantime, please address this point: Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • “AGW is the only theory that explains the current global warming. It is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. It’s projections match observations quite well. No other possible explanation we know of comes close. That’s why AGW is the theory used for explaining the current global warming. The way you disprove AGW is by finding a better theory.”
        That’s a lot of claims, none of them proven, most of them most of them easy to prove false, all of them worthy to be forever marked on the hall of shame with a mention “do not ever says this again”. The question is, is it worth the effort to show you wrong? Do you have good faith enough? Won’t you rather answer “this is off topic” to discard inconvenient evidence, or turn your claim into a new version untouched by the evidence the first version was false? That’s what you did every time so far.
        So, then again, is it worth the effort? YOU tell me.

        Let’s start with a simple one “No other possible explanation we know of comes close. ”
        Who dare bring a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Argument from ignorance in a scientific debate? You do. And you stick to it, again and again. Stop that. Forever.
        Marked on the hall of shame with a mention “do not ever says this again”

      • paqyfelyc wrote again: “That’s a lot of claims, none of them proven…”

        The statement you are denouncing, which is presented again below, is a statement of fact:

        AGW is the only theory that explains the current global warming. It is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. It’s projections match observations quite well. No other possible explanation we know of comes close. That’s why AGW is the theory used for explaining the current global warming. The way you disprove AGW is by finding a better theory.

        If you have an alternative theory that explains all the data, post it now.

      • @martin Smith
        “AGW is the only theory that explains the current global warming. It is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. It’s projections match observations quite well. No other possible explanation we know of comes close. That’s why AGW is the theory used for explaining the current global warming. The way you disprove AGW is by finding a better theory.”
        That’s a lot of claims, none of them proven, most of them most of them easy to prove false, all of them worthy to be forever marked with a mention “do not ever say this again”. The question is, is it worth the effort to show you wrong? Do you have good faith enough? Won’t you rather answer “this is off topic” to discard inconvenient evidence, or turn your claim into a new version untouched by the evidence the first version was false? That’s what you did every time so far.
        So, then again, is it worth the effort? YOU tell me.

        Let’s start with a simple one “No other possible explanation we know of comes close. ”
        Who dare bring the fallacy “I don’t know any other possible explanation, so the witch is guilty” in a scientific debate? You do. And you stick to it, again and again. Stop that. Forever. The choice is simple: either the theory does get proper support, and this argument is useless. Or it doesn’t… This argument may bu useful for a cult or a superstition, but for this very reason it is unsuitable as far as science is concerned and weaken your case, not strengthen it.
        Marked with mention “do not ever say this again”.

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “That’s a lot of claims, none of them proven…”

        What I wrote is factual and correct. AGW is the only theory that explains the current global warming. It is the only explanation for the current warming that accounts for all the data. It’s projections match observations quite well. No other possible explanation we know of comes close. That’s why AGW is the theory used for explaining the current global warming. The way you disprove AGW is by finding a better theory.

        I await your proposal. In the meantime, please address this point: Neither you nor Sheldon Walker, nor Richard M, nor anyone else here has ever addressed this point: You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • You didn’t anwser.
        Is it worth the effort to you prove you wrong?

        Well, actually you did. I pointed at a most blatant fallacy, you didn’t even deny it is a fallacy, but you stick to it no matter what.
        If you do that for a fallacy, no amount of evidence will ever convince you. It is much more easy for you to cherry-pick papers supporting your claims and discard all contradicting evidence, than accept changing your mind. Even a paper from Mann you discarded, although it just mitigated a claim without impact on the AGW theory.
        You succeeded in proving right Dave Fair February 13, 2018 at 10:59 pm

        Here’s yet another “scientific meaning of your alleged pause.” (atop those already given you discarded, as you discard all inconveniency )
        It is a detector of people like Martin Smith, ready to use any fallacy to support their claims.
        Final answer. .

      • paqyfelyc wrote: “You didn’t anwser (sic).”

        I did answer; you didn’t. But that is actually my point. None of you has even attempted a serious explanation of why you think you alleged pause is important. Whether there was or was not a pause, there isn’t one now. If there was a pause, it can’t be evidence against AGW.

        I have continued to reply to your missives because each one gives me a new opportunity to prove this point: You can’t provide a serious explanation of what your alleged pause means in AGW. Your real purpose is to manufacture doubt about the accuracy of global climate models by implying that, because their outputs don’t show the alleged pause when the ENSO submodel is not included, global climate models can’t be trusted.
        That’s your real purpose. It is not science; it is not skepticism. It is nefarious.

      • Act V, scene IX
        (Thunderclap. Martin Smith, previously dressed as an ordinary man, rip open his dress, exposing his red cassock and holy cross previously concealed, and gleam in triumph. paqyfelyc falls on her knee stunned in awe; for the rest of the scene, will makes herself smaller and smaller, tamed. )

        Martin Smith (talking quickly and very loud, with frantic gestures, expressive face, pointing of finger, etc. Walking speedily all aver the scene to show complete possession of the space and domination):
        “aha ah (evil laughter), Nobody expect Spanish Inquisition! I am not the ordinary man you thought!
        I tricked you, evil witches, and it duly worked as I intended.
        I have continued to reply to your missives because each one gives me a new opportunity to prove this point: any proof of whatever, I can weave hand at, and pretend it doesn’t exist, or is not serious, or off topic, as I see fit. So none of you has even attempted a serious explanation of why you think your alleged fossil is important.
        And lo, behold, I am mind-reader, too. You didn’t expect that, either, did you? I know your real purpose! You intent to smear the Holy Bible, by implying that, just because at first reading it doesn’t seem to mention fossils when the ENGEL submodel is not included, the Gospel cannot be trusted.
        That’s your real purpose. It is not science; it is not skepticism. It is nefarious.”

        (paqyfelyc cowers away of the stage as sneakily as possible. Martin Smith stand up alone at the center of the scene, in full control, under bright light, with a gloriole.
        Curtain closes)

        Audience blows in laughter and delight, and stand-up clapping for the fabulous performance.

      • paqyfelyc continued his ad hominem attack but remains unwilling, as are Sheldon Walker and Richard M, to answer the obvious question resulting from the issue Walker raised:

        You have stated that your alleged pause is statistically significant and scientifically meaningful. This paper shows that the models that include ENSO show pauses like your alleged one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348479_Well-estimated_global_surface_warming_in_climate_projections_selected_for_ENSO_phase

        The observed data show that there have been many pauses like the one you allege (see here: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47).

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        Then state the scientific meaning of your alleged pause.

      • Martin Smith

        So, (a) the paper demonstrates that the climate models that include ENSO show pauses, and (b) the other link shows that there have been many so-called pauses before this one that you claim is both statistically significant and scientifically meaningful.

        No, you’ve linked to that animated gif of a self-called “escalator” at the SS (Skeptical Science) site several times now. it’s “information” has not changed.
        It claims to show “many pauses” in the past. The SS gif does not do that. What that animation does show very well are six separate short periods ranging from 2-1/2 years to 12 years – averaging less than 8 years each for the total of 45 years before 2015 – of oscillating past recorded temperatures between the 1970’s and 2000’s as temperatures gradually rose after they fell from 1945 to 1975. Now, global atmospheric CO2 levels continuously INCREASED from 1945 through 2018. But global average temperatures DECREASED from 1945 through 1975 – a feature the SS animated gif blocked out – and then INCREASED between 1975 and 1998.

        Thus, the SS animated gif only displays what no one is disputing: Global average temperatures and global average CO2 levels both increased over a 23 year span between 1975 and 1998. The SS gif selectively HIDES the decline before the unique 30 year period in earth’s history when temperatures fell but CO2 rose at the same time.

        The single, long, enduring 18 year “pause” as we found it by BACKTRACKING from each date after 2003 (when it began to be noticeable) is up to 2, 3 and up to 5 TIMES longer than the six short short stairsteps conveniently highlighted in the SS animated gif. The gif does not establish anything but our own points that contradict the CAGW theory:
        – CO2 increased for more than 30 years between 1940 and 1975, and global average temperatures fell.
        – CO2 increased for 20+ years between 1975 and 1998, and global average temperatures rose.
        – CO2 increased even MORE for 20 years between 1998 and 2018, and global average temperatures remained near-steady. (The pause, until the El Nino rise of 2016-2017, and now today’s GAT of +0.28 above the mid-1970’s baseline of 0.0.)

  24. @mod
    I wrote several comment that never appeared, I think they went to the moderation buffer because of some trigger word. I reformulated and the modified comment appeared, so don’t bother to save those previous comments, as they would double

Comments are closed.