Hump Day Hilarity – climate science in denial, wishes “the pause” away

From the “Where we’re going, we don’t need data!” department comes this absolute corruption of science. It’s so bad, it’s actually funny. Josh sure thinks so.

First the trigger, from the bought and paid for mouthpiece known as Inside Climate News:

Excerpt:

The United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report, scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it, and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn’t exist, but in reality the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” never occurred.

That is the conclusion of a pair of studies, published Tuesday in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, based on statistical reassessments of a recent 10-year period that appeared at the time to evince a flattened warming curve.

Of course, they only cite NASA GISS, and as we all know GISS runs hot, because it’s run by activists, not scientists. James Hansen was regularly arrested for protests, Gavin Schmidt isn’t honest enough to even address the issue and runs from his opponents, Stafan Rahmstorf is on a self-love ego trip, and Michael Mann, well there just aren’t enough words (but there is a book). These people are the central part of “the hockey team” at RealClimate that in my opinion, has forever corrupted climate science.

Here’s a couple of other data sources that AREN’T NASA GISS, spot the hiatus.

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

Monthly temperature anomalies for HadCRUT4.5 (HadSST3 and CRUTEM4.6 stations data) calculated by spherical triangulation method. Note what 2015-16 El Niño did to “max out” data.

 

Of course, if you want to believe that NASA GISS data, produced by the same self-centered activist people that embrace satellite data for sea-ice analysis, but reject it for temperature because it doesn’t match the models “best guesses”, you go right ahead.

Wishing and sophistry doesn’t make inconvenient things go away, but it is entertaining.

cartoonsbyjosh.com

 

Added: if you want a bigger laugh, have a look at climate science’s Top Ten Reasons for The Pause that now, never existed.

Then there’s this:

Advertisements

102 thoughts on “Hump Day Hilarity – climate science in denial, wishes “the pause” away

    • To me, as I’ve grown old with this scam, the only certainty is that 97% of the public will lose 97% of their wealth as they devote 97% of their ‘gullibles’ (a measure of how much they are taken in by the scam) to 97% of the scamsters who promote the scam.
      This is the most disgusting example of the poor transferring their ‘wealth’ to the wealthy – so that the wealthy can laugh in their faces.
      Sic transit gloria mundi.

      • Nope. 97% of the people already HAVE completely lost interest in a “problem” which they’ve figured out is no “problem” at ALL. Hence the sales of Ford F-150’s vs. Volts, Bolts, and Priuses. The only group still wringing their hands over this nonsense are coastal social climbers trying to virtue-signal their way into the “cool” parties–where everyone wears Patagonia and pretends to like kale while making “empathetic” noises that show they “care.” Though not enough apparently to ditch their 8,500 square foot McMansions, ski chalets, condos in St. Barth’s and 4 gas-guzzling Mercedes . . .

        • The 3% – the Gores, the BBC, Sky, etc can outspeak (is that a word?) the 97% even if they have lost interest in the scam. The stats on F-150s sales may be good but that does not stop the PTB determining that EVs shall be the rule in 2030 – because they can. The market has some effect but cannot compete with autocracy.

          • Kale is great with sauteed onions and then added to mashed poatoes,,Yum.. A nice lamb chop on the plate and grilled tomatoes and we have a great meal. And all home made. 🙂

        • Kale is very good if it’s used in small quantities in a noodle soup made with chicken or beef broth.

          Otherwise, it tastes like 200-year-old unwashed laundry.

        • It’s remarkable that the whole 97% scam is centred on 75 climate scientists who responded to a question with a yes.

          • Are they really scientists they could have been 75 like Mosher, people calling themselves Scientists, one never knows in this field. I got told by a comment by Philip Schaeffer that one just had to be “studying” to be called a scientist, so one never knows.

            I think we should actually promote Kenji to scientists status he was(still is?), a member of the Union of Concerned scientists.

          • LdB said:

            “I got told by a comment by Philip Schaeffer that one just had to be “studying” to be called a scientist, so one never knows.”

            “scientist: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”

            So, what do you call someone who meets that definition but doesn’t have a relevant degree?

        • I hate to throw away partially full containers of garbage, but on trash day, you gotta do it.
          So having plenty of kale on hand means I can always top off any load of garbage to make sure there is no wasted space.

    • That is the conclusion of a pair of studies, published Tuesday in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, based on statistical reassessments of a recent 10-year period that appeared at the time to evince a flattened warming curve.

      Now from 2018 back 10 years to 2008 (provided this is the 10 year period indicated, goes back to the bottom of a La Nina and a cool period relative to the 10 preceding years. Is this truly Science??
      Ultimately I was under the impression that Dr Mann specifically and climate scientists in general indicated back in 2000, when the Hiatus was becoming evident, that any period less than 15 years could not be considered “Climate” and thereby the smaller period was considered as having “Cherry Picked” start and end dates. What makes this 10 year period different from the 18 year – 7 month hiatus period is that it should be considered as having “Cherry Picked” start and end dates as 10 years is insufficient to produce conclusive climatological data to determine any relative warming or cooling period.

  1. Oh great, on top of;
    Paid by the oil lobby
    Too stupid to understand the Green House theory
    The highest temperature ever
    CO2 is killing people
    The USA/Europe has filled the oceans with plastic
    Tree rings don’t lie
    I’ll get to hear: Deniers lied about a pause

    • I’ll get to hear: Deniers lied about a pause

      but how can it be a lie when “the United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report” and climate “scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it”. Where those climate science experts/scientists lying too?

  2. “Never mind your lying eyes,respect my authority”
    Does not work.
    The respect for authority that our brainwashed children will have, when they mature,will be a boom to individual liberty.
    I guess those guys really do want to go out with a bang.
    But what do we expect,these are the same people who rewrote history to suit their story.
    Vikings in Greenland? That never happened.

  3. So Phil McKenna now believes the IPCC got the science wrong.
    If the last decade is not settled then why should we trust the prediction for the next?

  4. James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Stafan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann and many others are “riding a tiger” which they just can’t get off.

  5. The “pause” never existed, because robust statistics says so.

    You must look at the data … robustly . Or, better still, don’t really worry about the data, just use robust statistics to create a sophistic (NOT sophisticated) argument for how OTHER people handled the data, and then draw a conclusion based on your busted (I mean, “rawbutt”) … no, I mean, “robust” … statistical handling of how others have chosen to deal with the data.

    Throw in some pretty charts and graphs. Use smart-sounding technical lingo. Zazzle, dazzle, curriculum-vitae-promo gymnastics, and there you go — another one bites the 97% consensus that I can count on my hands and toes.

    Well, I had every intention of making a serious and helpful comment, but …

    • You had me ready to sign on the dotted line at gymnastics. Can I get a side of value added synergy?

  6. The United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report, scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it, and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn’t exist, but in reality the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” never occurred.

    So the climate science experts were wrong in past (despite the science being “settled” and the debate being “over’) ? And you expect us to believe that this time its different?

    • … and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn’t exist …

      That claim, alone, is the purest-of-BS — flat-out false representation. There’s no such thing as a “climate denier”, and so there’s no such thing as a claim that climate change doesn’t exist. This is manipulation of language via personal definitions, unspecified, and then stated as if those unspecified, deformed personal definitions of commonly understood terms are the commonly understood definitions that a personal argument against them can defeat. In other words, … straw man with extra straw. Can I get lies with that?

  7. This post is a bit disappointing to me, especially given the upbeat tone of the recent post titled : Stop the Personal Attacks and Answer the Climate Questions.” I view climatology roughly the same way I view cosmology, namely: discussions of explanations of the past, comparison with present data, and predictions of future behavior simply need to be scrutinized thoroughly and compared with all the available data and all reasonable physical constraints available. That is to say, I am what could be called a skeptic.

    However, I found the introduction to this post and much of the discussion to largely focus on casting aspersions on the individuals and positing alternative data, rather than evaluating the analysis actually presented in the paper. I just saw the news of this paper today and only looked briefly at it. I presume someone will do that given a bit more time, but in the meantime, I would suggest taking a slightly higher road concerning personal ridicule and ad hominem.

      • I agree. In general, I am a bit uncomfortable when I see claims of “robust” results in any field using statistics but not within the formal discipline of statistics. Often it seems “robust” is used to describe results when what is really meant is more like “really good, you should believe this.” There is a fairly well developed area of robust statistics with specialized techniques for dealing with unusual distributions, outlier prone data, etc. but I am sometimes unsure if that is what is meant when the term is used in a paper outside of pure statistics.

    • These people are being assessed likewise on their track records, their claims and their accusations. Measures of high-minded professional scienceyness and collegial politeness can only account for a part of the assessment criteria.

      Or are you going to plea to just ignore the likewise real and relevant ‘human-factors’ such as ego, inveterate grandstanding, hand-waving, dis-ingenuousness, failing to provide code to peers while continuing to push their confected conclusion?

      Does refusing to cough-up code for so many years seem like science to you? Or ‘human factors’? How are they to be assessed or regarded then? As equivalent to high-minded and pure-as-the-driven-snow scientists, or as people with considerable known and demonstrated ‘human factors’ issues who should not be trusted to act ingenuously, given their own track record?

      At some point it is also high-minded and proper to draw some informed conclusions about such people and call a spade a spade.

      • The point of science I hope is to assess the technical arguments and not the people. I would rather have seen here an analysis of the details of the paper itself than a discussion of the opinions of the authors.

        That said, I would think it to be very soon to be forming an opinion on the merits of the paper itself. In my experience it takes quite some time to get into the details of such papers, particularly if one is not actively working in the specialized field. I think it took Nic Lewis a bit of time to find what appeared to be an egregious error in method and a few days to confirm it, contact the authors, etc. The last paper I spent any time with was the Karl et. al. adjustment paper that I recall also was aimed at reducing the pause by adjusting past data. As I recall, it took a good bit of time reading the details, looking at the SI, and consulting some references, particularly on the history of ocean temperature measurements. In the end, it seemed to me the paper was heavily weighted toward biasing past data in particular ways based significantly on the direction the bias was desired to be. I was unconvinced by the paper, but it took a fair amount of time. It is a good bit of work to dig into what some of these data heavy papers are trying to do, especially for those who, like myself, don’t specialize in the field.

        It just seems to me there is far too much on both sides in the way of not even considering what the other side is trying to say. Personally I would like to see a great deal more time spent on developing plausible models of past climate, say the last few thousand years and getting confident in modeling that evolution, without the presumed anthropogenic component. That is more or less the way cosmology works – figure out what you can predict about the evolution observed at various redshifts, up to the present day, then see what that might say about the future. There seems to be a Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project that interests me much more than the present CMIP activities.

        • How frickin hard is it to graph a set of values and then plot their slope? If you need to do a “statistical reanalysis” on fixed set of data to come up with a new answer to the question of what is the slope, then you are just trying to get a different answer. 10 yrs? pause was longer why only 10 yrs? Sorry, but unless they are saying the data is wrong to start with this can be rejected out of hand.

  8. “Missing Arctic data was part of the problem.”

    The Arctic may be under-represented in global temperature trends, and that is where warming is supposedly happening the fastest. However, the same has been true for over 150 yrs now, so this concept needs to be applied to the rest of the temperature record, not just the pause era.

    • Arctic data us still missing…they made it up with statistics

      “warming at a faster rate”….only if you completely ignore the 30’s

      • Correct, Latitude. The story is, “As a result, data sets on global temperature tended to omit the Arctic until recently, when researchers came up with a better way to extrapolate data from the region. (my bold)”

        They’re infilling all the missing temperatures using some wonderful new statistical method.

        It’s fake-data creation, followed by desired-conclusion mongering. Just the way all the very best science is done.

        • The Arctic is free after all. I should know. I just sailed my sailboat up there in augmented virtually reality. Just the other day I took a boat down Canal St. in NYC. That’s because all the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic has melted.
          And NO! you can’t change my mind with silly reality ploys.

          When talking to a warmist, do ever feel like you are talking to a crazy person?

          Pause? What Pause? The tipping point occurred at 350 ppm/v. It’s just so insanely hot now, that using the new feature of global warming, I had to turn the heat on because it causes ice to form.

          • It rained so hard the day I left,
            the weather it was dry.
            The sun so hot
            I froze to death.
            CO2, don’t you go over 350.

            (It’s an old song. )

          • James A Schrumpf

            It rained so hard the day I left,
            the weather it was dry.
            The sun so hot
            I froze to death.
            CO2, don’t you go over 350.

            I like the idea, I love the parody of the melody.

            But somehow the last line doesn’t “sing” in harmony with the phonemes “Oh Suzanna” quite right.
            “O Ceeee O, Oh don’t you grow for me,

            My plants are green,
            My trunks are huge,
            My veggies are superb!
            But O Ceeeee O, your increase is no crime.

    • They are somewhat correct. All of the warming this century is due to the Arctic winter temperature bump which now happens every year. Funny thing though, it always goes away in the summer. This is because it is nothing but noise due the reduction in sea ice. It is obvious in this graph of SSTs.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend

      When the AMO goes negative that noise will go away and the warming will quickly turn into cooling even though most of it won’t be real. You can see it happened the last time the AMO changed modes as well.

      So, the pause not only happened, it never went away. It is just hidden by all the noise in the data.

    • We use models to help us determine what the changes would have been, had we had instruments in place to measure these changes.

      The fact that the adjusted data closely matches what the models predict is proof that the models are accurate.

      • “The fact that the adjusted data closely matches what the models predict is proof that the models are accurate.” Errr, WOW, talk about circular reasoning. I must try that the next time I have to submit a paper – “G’day Prof, there aint nuffen wrong with the model now that I’ve post hoc adjusted a few data sets to fit the model…………”

  9. Many of us predicted there would be a “get rid of the pause” target similar to the “we have to get rid of the medieval warm period” problem that the hockey stick took care of.

    • They are going to have to mount an attack on Jason 3 data very soon because it is getting very problematic for sea level rise. We are currently looking for Unicorns or Aliens taking vast quantities of water without anyone noticing to support IPCC sea level rise claim.

  10. Lewandowsky lead author doing a study on the studies, (we know his skill there) and uses better ‘robust statistics’.

    A Christmas laugh.

  11. Here’s Gavin’s comment about the difference between the satellite and other databases:

    Let’s remember the point here. We compare models and observations to learn something about the real world, not just to score points in some esoteric debate.

    The scientific method uses experiments to test hypotheses. The satellite data is the experiment that disproves the CAGW hypothesis. Gavin can twist himself into pretzels all he wants but he can’t get around the scientific method by calling it an esoteric debate.

    • Gavin’s wrong.

      They ought to be comparing models and the (physically) real world in order to improve the models.

      The models themselves, presently, tell us nothing about the (physically) real world.

  12. If this is what GISS does to the pause, it makes you wonder what contortions will be needed to erase the coming decline.

    • All the data coming realtime needs to be archived/recorded. Lots and lots of data coming in.
      I don’t know what program or method is used by Gavin and company.
      There are programs designed to archived data that are set up to only actually store a value that breaks a deadband, say, +/- 1 degree from the last value stored. They can be set to only store a value +0.9/-1.1 degree from the last value stored. That would tend to store more warmer values than cooler ones.
      Calling on the temperature for a date or time that wasn’t one of the actual stored values would return an interpolated (or is it extrapolated value? I always get those two mixed up.) without saying it is not an actual stored value.
      In other words, it’s possible to contort the numbers as they come in.
      (It’s also possible to put such “filters” on the data when it is retrieved.)

      Just what program is used by GISS to store the data that comes in and what are the settings?

      • “Just what program is used by GISS to store the data that comes in and what are the settings?”
        Why don’t you find out? The complete GISS code is here.

        But you’d be looking in the wrong place. GISS gets its data from GHCN and ERSST. GHCN unadjusted data (QCU) is never altered; where doubts arise flags are applied. Since 1997 it comes direct from CLIMAT forms submitted by national met offices. You can see them there as submitted, even with the original code.

        • Thanks, Nick.
          I suppose I was a bit naive thinking that a commercial program was used to archive the data.
          From the documentation link ( https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html) in your link:

          gistemp is a software product written in the Python programming language.
          It is a replication of the original GISTEMP, written in fortran and Python.

          The concept was developed starting in 1979 at NASA/GISS by James Hansen and Sergei Lebedeff.
          It was coded in fortran by Sergei, later rewritten and modified by Reto Ruedy.
          Jay Glascoe added parts written in python (Step 1 below) to deal with GHCN v2.
          Reto Ruedy added the urban adjustment routines in fortran (Step2 below).
          All this work was done at NASA/GISS.

          In 2007, David Jones’ team, Climate Code Foundation, reprogrammed the whole procedure in python,
          as a product of the Clear Climate Code project and the Climate Code Foundation,
          http://clearclimatecode.org/…….etc.

          Still nothing that shows the original wasn’t passed through a “Hot Fudged Blender” more than once to produce GISS which runs hot.
          (I guess only someone who understands the the programming languages involved could spot the equivalent of a “HarryReadMe” file.)

          • PS Do we have the code this talks of?
            “The concept was developed starting in 1979 at NASA/GISS by James Hansen and Sergei Lebedeff.”

            PS I was tempted to add “Before the code was adjusted?”.
            (and I almost successfully resisted.8-)

    • Earth has been cooling since February 2016, the peak of the Super El Nino, insignificantly warmer than the prior SEN of 1998-99.

      Maybe a new minor El Nino will break the precipitate fall in temperature next year, but if not, it will look as if the “Pause” is back on, after three years of cooling.

      • So we’re saying that 3 years of cooler temperatures after an El Niño inspired peak constitutes a ‘pause’ in global warming?

        • If the warming following the LIA is proof of global warming, why can’t the drop in temperature after an El Nino be proof of cooling?
          BTW, warmists have been using the spike in temperatures caused by the same El Nino as proof of global warming since 2015.

          • MarkW

            If the warming following the LIA is proof of global warming, why can’t the drop in temperature after an El Nino be proof of cooling?

            Perhaps because the warming following the LIA took decades to kick in.

            BTW, warmists have been using the spike in temperatures caused by the same El Nino as proof of global warming since 2015.

            Which is equally preposterous.

  13. First, the “missing heat” hid in the deep oceans, then it hid in the Arctic. I wonder where it will hide next.
    Uranus?

  14. So 200 peer-reviewed papers were published explaining something that never happened? Yet we’re supposed to trust peer-reviewed science?

    • So 200 peer-reviewed papers were published explaining something that never happened? Yet we’re supposed to trust peer-reviewed science?

      Fair comment, but isn’t that a good reason to examine what caused such an odd thing to happen?

      If you read the Risbey et al. paper (it’s open access) you’ll see that they criticize the ‘pause papers’ for not clearly defining what the pause is (or was) and for not agreeing on its duration. They show a histogram revealing a ‘pause-period’ in the literature which spans “roughly 1998–2015”. Again, there seems to be little clear agreement on when the pause started and ended; but at least 1998-2015 gives us a period to work with.

      I’m aware that the current surface data sets have been updated in the past few years, especially the ERSST component, and that this has had the effect of warming more recent temperatures in some cases. However, according to the latest version of GISS, the period 1998-2015 was one of statistically significant global warming (0.137 ±0.113 °C/decade (2σ)). NOAA also shows statistically significant global warming over that period, as does BEST. HadCRUT4, which uses its own SST series, also shows warming but just short of statistical significance: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

      Turning to the lower troposphere, UAH shows slight cooling 1998-2015 (-0.003 ±0.183 °C/decade (2σ)); while RSS shows warming, but not significant (0.043 ±0.182 °C/decade (2σ)). It’s true that the previous version of RSS (v3.3 TLT) also showed slight cooling 1998-2015, but then the previous version of UAH (v5.6 TLT) showed slight warming over that period. Their respective updates basically swapped them around.

      So is that the ‘pause’ then? 1998-2015 and then only in one of the current TLT satellite data series and none of the current surface sets?

  15. May I be allowed to post part of a comment I left on another site where someone offered a ‘yawn’ at the purveyors of AGW:

    ‘Yawn’, ye may, but that yawn will turn to a scream when those that control the narrative impose their ‘solution’ to mankind’s global warming ‘travails’ (not the first time a ‘solution’ has been imposed, methinks). In years to come – not too long after I’m gone, I hope – there will, in God’s name, be ‘Nuremberg trial’ to convict the guilty. That is how serious I think this is. This is not – NOT – as academic fight.

    There is not a global-warming activist, to my knowledge. who is poor. I wonder why.

    • I shouldn’t have looked at your link R.S. Brown just after eating my lunch. It was all I could do to keep it down!

  16. Sadly the average person just does not care. They come home from work, , those who do still have a job.. They are tired, and all they want to do is to e relax.

    The may look at the news, but most is bad, someone is fighting someone. Politicians are behaving like a mob of kids in a school, these days.

    So they tune into what t passes for entatement these days on the “Free to air”, and then go to bed.

    Try to explain even the basic s science about life in general and their eyes will just glaze over.

    I hate to say it, but I think we have lost the battle against the Green Blob, their properganda is far better than ours.

    So we will just have to wait until the lights go out.

    MJE

    • “I hate to say it, but I think we have lost the battle against the Green Blob, their properganda is far better than ours. So we will just have to wait until the lights go out.”

      Then we’ll win the WAR!

      • Don’t be so sure. The have the CDC, the bio-weapons labs, and the extensive hidden underground infrastructure. If we control the vast majority of territory and are completely dominant in a guerrilla insurgency, that doesn’t guarantee victory and the ability to rebuild.

  17. Why all the concentration on the last hiatus?
    No discussion of the 1979-1987 hiatus and 1988-1997 hiatus?
    And the big hiatus in the 50s to 60s?

    Isn’t there a song about this?

    With a hiatus here and a hiatus there
    Here hiatus, there hiatus, everywhere, hiatus, hiatus!

  18. My favorite equation. This is my Cosmological Equation:

    a = C1 – G m/(L R^2) – (C2/L) R = 0

    Where: a is cosmic acceleration, C1 and C2 are constants, G is gravitational constant, m is mass of ordinary matter in the universe, L is Lorentz factor, R is radius of universe. The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any n-degree polynomial has n roots. My Cosmological Equation has two roots of polynomial. The first root is the radius when the universe collapses into a black hole. The second root is the radius when gravity overcomes dark energy and acceleration of space expansion reverses into deceleration.

    This is from my Dark Force theory. It’s inevitable. The universe will collapse into a black hole. It will be one of the most important equations in physics. Hopefully before our universe collapses into a black hole :-0

  19. Could someone define what the pause actually is or was, please? How is a pause defined in terms of temperature trend per decade and over what duration?

    In other words, when did the pause start and end (if it has ended) and what defined it as a pause?

    No one seems to have done this so far.

    Thanks.

  20. If we’re going for 1998-2015 then the surface data sets all show warming, statistically significant in GISS, NOAA and Best and just short of statistical significance in HadCRUT4.

    In the satellite TLT data sets 1998-2015 one (UAH) shows very slight cooling and the other (RSS) shows slight warming.

    Are we saying that the pause was 1998-2015, but only if you look at TLT and then only if you select one of the two data providers?

    • “then only if you select one of the two data providers”
      And select the right version. UAH’s version of the time – v5.6 – gave a trend over the period of 0.62°C/century – comparable warming to surface. Of course, RSS then had V3.3, Lord Monckton’s then favorite. It showed cooling.

  21. What’s happening here is obvious: Earth’s 500-year Little Ice Age (LIA), which commenced in AD 1350 with the Kambalny strato-volcano eruption in Kamchatka and ended c. 1850/1890, induced a 140-year “amplitude compression” rebound in alternating 50-40-30-20 year warm-cool phases through AD 2030.

    From the 40-year chill phase lasting AD 1940 – ’79, over twenty years deviant AGW catastrophists spuriously extrapolated the ensuing warming period to 1998, whereupon 30-year temperatures topped out through 2009 preliminary to a final 20-year chill from 2010 – 2029.

    As of September 2018, this so-called “pause” (which in fact lasted but ten years, through c. 1999) has lasted over twenty years, longer than driveling Warmists’ original 1978 – ’98. Now entering a 70+ year Grand Solar (Sunspot) Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, due for extended chaotic/fractal oscillations through c. AD 2100, global temperatures are in free-fall downward mode, manifestly in no tomfool “pause” at all.

    Of course, AGW alarmists’ asinine “carbon footprint” whereby 400 ppm (.04%) of CO2 “industrial accumulations” drive Earth’s entire global atmospheric surface temperature (GAST) is no more than thanatistic Luddites’ drive to One World domination, fetishizing “elimination” of some 6.84 billion people on the way. For the the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ December 2017 equation, where any planet’s temperature T = PM/Rp (qv), decisively refutes CO2 as having any influence whatever, no matter which planet from Mercury to Neptune one may choose.

  22. Just heard a new REASON THE PAUSE IS FALSE.

    The arctic is under-represented in the recent data and that’s where most of the warming is.

    Problem with that…in 1927 it was almost totally unrepresented (only a few thermometers)…so nobody knows the earth’s temperatures then. So nobody knows 20th century trends. We are just told that we do.

  23. great success. Climate change believers gather their communities and collect donations in the bells bag.

Comments are closed.