I placed the words "the Pause" in the title to demonstrate the turmoil, befuddlement within the global warming community for what this source says has been no increase in global average surface temperature in +15 years.
That even within the global warming the realization that there has been no temperature changes is absolute news to me and would like to see this from a wider spectrum of sources.
The comments section of this site offers a lot more information on what is happening within the global warming community that we otherwise don't get to see.
It seems the terms "Hiatus","The Pause" are used to describe what is self-admitted within the global warming community of no temperature changes. Global Warming
Implications for the future:
I. IPCC AR5 view
The hiatus will end soon, with the next El Nino
Implications for the future:
II. View emphasizing natural internal variability
The hiatus will continue at least another decade Climate models are too sensitive to external forcing Hiatus persistence beyond 20 years would support a firm declaration of problems with the climate models Incorrect accounting for natural internal variability implies: Biased attribution of 20th century warming Climate models are not useful on decadal time scales
Maybe fraudulently forcing CO2 as the warming catalyst has something to do with it then manipulating and cherry picking the data. That would make the computer projections look great for the scammers and why THE REAL TEMPERATURE DATA is not behaving like they would wish.
They missed one possibility:
V. The models are simply patently incorrect regarding anthropogenic global warming.
She is happy to ascribe the “Pause” to the ‘stadium wave’/oscillation, but I don’t see any assignment of the arming that they used for alarmism to the ‘stadium wave’.
If it can explain cooling, it also explains earlier warming (when the wave has the the opposite phase).
So how long until your useless models can even explain the “stadium wave” AFTER the fact.
So, is “the warm-o-pause” the latest “consensus?” I don’t see headlines saying, “105% of scientists agree ‘no warming’.”
What will they say when the “hiatus” continues for 20 years? 50 years? 200 years? Will they ever say “We screwed up, there is no global warming”? Not holding my (CO2) breath.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
short translation - clarity is absent, uncertainty reigns, prospects of postitively affecting outcomes dim, which in sum is not a recipe for great activist policies, which will at this point look like Don Quixote
hiatus in global warming. ???
I know a guy who was a silent movie star who’s just waiting for the talkie ‘fad’ to blow over.
An excellent website for keeping up with the skeptics’ view of global warming/climate change/climate disruption is wattsupwiththat.com, run by Anthony Watts. Judith Curry, the author of the piece quoted, is frequently mentioned there.
My take on the issue (as a non-scientist):
Fact: CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, and at a fairly rapid, and consistent, rate.
Fact: Some of the increase is due to burning fossil fuels.
Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This just means that when added to the atmosphere it results in trapping more outgoing heat, as a greenhouse does.
Note: A skeptic would be well-advised to agree with all three of the above since they are, indeed, indisputable facts that scientists agree upon (although it’s always possible they’re wrong about one of them I suppose.)
#1: The “97% of all scientists agree with global warming” is complete b.s. It’s based on a very limited sample someone once did and keeps getting repeated ad nauseam. Complicating matters, since most scientists agree with the first three facts above, it’s easy to structure survey questions to get a high percentage agreeing with a seemingly relevant question. For example, although I think the entire global warming issue is a crock of bull intended to drain taxpayer’s pockets I would still agree with the statement: “Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 and that has contributed to a warming of the earth’s atmosphere.”
#2: The greenhouse effect of CO2 operates logarithmically. That means that a doubling from, say, 200 to 400 parts per million, has the same effect on temperature as another doubling from 400 to 800 parts per million. Since CO2 has increased from 300 to almost 400 in the last 60 to 70 years, another 100 unit increase over the next 65 years would have a lesser effect on temperature. It would have to increase another 1/3 (133 units to 533 parts per million) to have the same effect. Essentially the problem lessens as we move higher in CO2, since it takes larger and larger increases to have the same greenhouse effect as before.
#3: The models were put together during a time when the earth was probably naturally warming due to the sun’s varying activity. To get them to make sense they incorporated a feedback factor to the CO2 contribution. Put another way, the observed increase in CO2 didn’t forecast the observed increase in temperatures. Temps increased more than expected. So the models incorporated a multiplier that bumped the temperature so that, for example, a 1% increase in CO2 would generate two or three times the expected increase in temperature. Importantly, the “hiatus” would indicate that incorporating the higher feedback factor was a mistake.
#4: The models ignore the sun and concentrate on CO2 primarily.
#5: The models have failed miserably over the past 15 years or so when temperatures have plateaued even as CO2 has increased steadily. Not only is there no positive feedback apparent, but either the feedback factor should be negative, or something else is overriding the positive effect on temperature of increasing CO2.
#6: Historically, times of warmer weather have been prosperous times and times of colder weather have been difficult economically.
#7: HIstorically, when energy becomes cheaper and therefore more readily available to all, economies prosper.
#8: Liberal politicians, and some misinformed conservative ones as well, are doing their utmost to raise the cost of energy to all by subsidizing “green” alternatives while frustrating the discovery and recovery of fossil fuel sources and while adding the cost of the subsidies to electric prices everywhere.
Conclusion: There is hay to be made by a conservative politician that understands the above. People have become wary of the global warming meme (especially when they were forced by the “pause” to switch terms to “climate change” and were then outed by Climategate) and they are now primed to positively view a message of “We need to lower the cost of gas and electricity and we can do it easily by simply reversing the policies of the Obama administration.”
All of this is soooooo much speculation hidden by complex formulas to describe “man-induced climate change”. As a scientist, I don’t buy their methods OR their dishonest test results.
Back in the day we would call it quackery. Today they call it a religion _ environmentalism.
As of this writing, there is no Scientifically proven, laboratory tested, peer-reviewed, published article on any known Cause and Effect between the amount of CO2 and change in air temperature.
In the field, for example, the Global ppm of CO2 has increased in the last 17 years, but the Global air temperature has not changed, or has gotten colder depending on the site being measured.
Last year the Arctic Ocean Ice Cap grew in area and thickness with Global CO2 at its highest level, providing yet another addition to the very long list of field test failures to the proponents of the pop-culture, junk science speculation called Global Warming.
CO2 is essential for plants to obtain Carbon, and thus CO2 is an environmentally friendly Green House Gas right along with the most abundant Green House Gas, Water Vapor.
BTW, Water Vapor abundance in the atmosphere is 25,000 ppmillion, and CO2 is 400 ppmillion, +/-, adjusted for volcanic and seasonal variation.
Fear-mongering, Spendaholic Politicians can fool some of the real Scientists some of the time, but they have convincingly proven that they can fool all of the junk scientists all of the time.
Since abundant CO2 is essential for Green Plants to grow by the process of Photosynthesis, we FReepers are duty bound to break down the Spendaholic Politicians Barrycades that un-Scientifically discourage the increased generation of life-giving CO2.
Let us as FReepers storm the Anti-Green Energy, Phony CO2 Barrycades of the Spendaholic Politicians with the following chants and street signs:
Support Green House Gas Increases:
CO2 means more plant food for you;
Corn and CO2 go together like Wealth and Work;
Carbon is a Plants Best Friend;
If you like to hug trees, then produce more CO2;
Make more CO2, not more Taxes;
Bring back our life-giving Coal fired plants:
Support the TRUE Green Energy Revolution!