Global warming 'pause' theory is dead but still twitching

September 17, 2015
People stand next to the Rhone Glacier on July 14, 2015 which was wrapped with blankets as a protection from the sun near Gletsc
People stand next to the Rhone Glacier on July 14, 2015 which was wrapped with blankets as a protection from the sun near Gletsch

A study released Thursday is the second this year seeking to debunk a 1998-2013 "pause" in global warming, but other climate scientists insist the slowdown was real, even if not a game-changer.

When evidence of the apparent hiatus first emerged, it was seized upon by sceptics as evidence that was driven more by natural cycles that humans pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

"Our results clearly show that ... there never was a hiatus, a pause or a slowdown," Noah Diffenbaugh, the study's main architect and a professor at Stanford University, said in a statement.

The thermal time-out, his team found, resulted from "faulty statistical methods".

In June, experts from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came to the same conclusion, chalking up the alleged slowdown to a discrepancy in measurements involving ocean buoys used to log temperatures.

Their results were published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Beyond a strident public debate fuelled as much by ideology and facts, the "pause" issue has serious real-world implications.

Scientifically, a discrepancy between climate projections and observations could suggest that science has overstated Earth's sensitivity to the radiative force of the Sun.

Politically, it could weaken the sense of urgency underlying troubled UN negotiations, tasked with crafting a global pact in December to beat back climate change.

At first, scientists sounding an alarm about the threat of greenhouse gases were stumped by the data, unable to explain the drop-off in the pace of warming.

Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—whose most recent 1,000-plus page report is the scientific benchmark for the UN talks—made note of "the hiatus".

Searching for explanations, the IPCC speculated on possible causes: minor volcano eruptions throwing radiation-blocking dust in the atmosphere, a decrease in solar activity, aerosols, regional weather patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

To the general relief of the climate science community, the Stanford findings—a detailed review of statistical methodology—would appear to be the final word on the subject.

Nail in the coffin

Previous calculations were flawed, they said, because they assumed there was a random distribution in tens of thousands of temperature data points. But once they were adjusted to take into account the relationship between the data points, the hiatus disappeared.

"This study puts the last nail in the coffin of the 'pause' idea circulated by the propagators or climate confusion," IPCC Vice President Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told AFP.

Perhaps—but if so, the corpse of the climate hiatus is still twitching in its grave.

In a 20-page report earlier this week called "Big changes underway in the climate system?", Britain's weather agency confirmed the existence of the notorious 'pause'—if only to say that it was probably over.

The historical record, the Met Office said, shows periods when temperatures rise rapidly and "periods with little warming or even cooling ... the most recent period starting around 2000."

The likelihood that 2015 and 2016 will deliver record average temperatures suggests that this interlude is likely over, the report said.

But despite having referenced the June NOAA study debunking the 'hiatus', the Met Office report did not call it into question.

Doug Smith, the Met Office's predictability research manager, told AFP that data for the world's average surface temperature showed "a clear reduction recently".

He added: "We prefer to call it a slowdown rather than a pause."

Rowan Sutton, Director of Research at Britain's National Centre for Atmospheric Science, went even further.

"We can't say that the 'pause' in the rise of global average surface temperature has ended because many factors affect short-term trends," he said.

At the same time, all these scientists agree that the debate is a footnote to the larger story of change, which threatens to make Earth inhospitable for humans well before the end of this century.

"Climate change never stopped and the Earth had continued to accumulate energy," Sutton said by email.

Explore further: Study seeks to understand variations in the rate of global warming

Related Stories

Using new data, US finds no pause in global warming

June 4, 2015

Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in global warming in recent years, according to research published on Thursday.

Global warming to pick up in 2015, 2016: experts

September 14, 2015

Man-made global warming is set to produce exceptionally high average temperatures this year and next, boosted by natural weather phenomena such as El Nino, Britain's top climate and weather body said in a report Monday.

Recommended for you

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
So if there wasn't even a slowdown of warming, then what's the shape of the real temperature graph?

Surely, if we know today what the temperature is, and there was never a slowdown but a continuous increase in temperatures, then that means the 1998 bump and the hot years at the start of 2000's, the tip of the "hockey stick", had to be false measurements and the real temperatures much lower than what we've all been told over the years.

Or is this just a nitpicking argument over whether the temperatures have been going ever so slightly up or not during the past 15 years?
denglish
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 17, 2015
Yes, no pause, no pause at all. Actually, it's cooling:

http://woodfortre.../to:2013

dan42day
2.7 / 5 (19) Sep 17, 2015
What they are saying is that they can't accurately tell you what's happened in the past, or what's going on in the present, but they are certain about what will happen in the future.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2015
I did notice a comment about the relationships of the data points. Are there are hot and cold REGIONS (of temperature) in motion about the planet?
greenonions
3.8 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015

So if there wasn't even a slowdown of warming, then what's the shape of the real temperature graph?

http://woodfortre.../to:2016
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Sep 17, 2015
climate change, which threatens to make Earth inhospitable for humans well before the end of this century


This is an outrageous statement.
docile
Sep 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mememine69
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Remaining Climate Change Believers Be Warned;
Climate Science can only be faulted for never saying "PROVEN" for their own CO2 Armageddon after 34 years but you remaining "believers" eagerly wanting science to have been certain wasn't "progressive" or even civilized.

*Is THIS how you want your children remembering you?*

Get ahead of the curve, it's over;
Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians taxing the air we breathe to make the weather nicer but colder.

Only 34 more years of climate action failure, debate and denial is certain and unstoppable now.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 17, 2015
When the data say things you don't want it too say, change the data points by averaging them with other data points. Continue doing this until the outcome is what you want.

The"pause" isn't dead. The data has been modified to make it appear that it has disappeared.
Bongstar420
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
They can have their global warming agenda when they invent a product that out produces gas at a lower price.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (19) Sep 17, 2015
In the end it really doesn't matter what the temperature stations were reporting.

We have satellites in orbit that measure the thermal radiation of the planet. We know how much solar energy comes in. So the total energy flux is:

Total flux = solar energy - thermal radiation

This value has been measured to be positive for decades now, meaning the planet is building up energy. This means the planet is getting hotter.

In the end, this piece of basic physics is all you need to prove that global warming is happening, and that it didn't stop during the "hiatus". That's why people in the know were not surprised to find out that the deep ocean was heating up - we knew the energy was going somewhere.

EDIT - By the way, I making this exact statement to people long before the hiatus was resolved - on this very site. So my prediction has now been confirmed by experiment, in the fine order of the scientific method.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
When the data say things you don't want it too say, change the data points by averaging them with other data points. Continue doing this until the outcome is what you want.

The"pause" isn't dead. The data has been modified to make it appear that it has disappeared.

This is true. Check this out:

HADCRUT3 and the improved version, HADCRUT4:
http://www.woodfo....5/trend

HADSST2 vs. the improved version, HADSST3:
http://www.woodfo...m:1997.5

And then, "unimproved" RSS:
http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

Which data set is most consistent with the only un-altered data set?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
Total flux = solar energy - thermal radiation

You're missing many variables.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2015
Total flux = solar energy - thermal radiation

You're missing many variables.

Actually I'm not. This is an exact (and very fundamental) physics relation.

EDIT: I should say, I'm just using the definition of energy flux through a closed surface, which is:

Total Energy = (power in - power out) * time
SamB
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2015
Global warming theory is dead but still twitching!
denglish
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2015
Wrapping a glacier in blankets? wtf?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2015
Total flux = solar energy - thermal radiation

You're missing many variables.

Actually I'm not. This is an exact (and very fundamental) physics relation.

EDIT: I should say, I'm just using the definition of energy flux through a closed surface, which is:

Total Energy = (power in - power out) * time

Ok, the deep ocean is heating up. How come we don't know what causes El Nino?
plasmasrevenge
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2015
The climate scientists are determined to make their claim, and will necessarily take the entire scientific enterprise's reputation down with them if they sink.

The statistics refuge is an old trick which will probably only work for those who have already been convinced.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
Only in climate science can historical data be totally discounted and replaced by pure supposition. The slope of the data set from 97 to now is undeniable.
denglish
2 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
I wonder what's going to happen after El Nino blows it's top (supposed to be winter 2015). Will La Nina make an appearance?

Will there need to be more improvement of the data?
Belg_ian
2.4 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
Do satellites literally measure all energy arriving or reflecting from the earth or do they measure at points and then the post processing of these local measurements make an overall value? if so this sounds quite accurate to me for arriving energy BUT the reverse measuring of reflected energy sensed locally by satellite sensors seems to involve by necessity more assumptions including reflected energy from clouds and the surface of the planet (land, forest, rock, sand, ocean, and rotation of the planet thru the daytime) these add dynamic variables to the equation for reflected energy - clouds in particular

thanks great to be in a free society where discussion is encouraged!!!

ogg_ogg
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
I've no serious issues with the theory that higher [CO2] will lead to higher surface temperatures. I do have problems with the post-hoc nature of the analyses claiming that the earlier data was misinterpreted. That is both studies "debunking" [now, that's a "neutral" objective term, right?] the Pause are post hoc, I've not read the second, but the first failed to explain why the data had been misinterpreted consistently for 15 years - by the proponents of climate change. This is called moving the goal posts. Serious scientists should be suspicious of this kind of shennanigan. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In MY book, a refutation of 15 years of data analysis requires more than one or two post-hoc analyses.) There has been a claim made in this thread that Energy increase is known because energy in and energy out are. This is false. Energy out is modeled. Our understanding of the impact of clouds & particulates on energy balance is inadequate still.
HansV
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
"which threatens to make Earth inhospitable for humans well before the end of this century."
I cannot believe this statement.

If you want to write editorials, or opinion pieces, fine, but this is a science site.

As to the study that this article is based on:

"Our results clearly show that ... there never was a hiatus, a pause or a slowdown,"

Really?
I wish the Climate Scientists could speak with authority through one voice, be it the IPCC at the UN or some other body.
Articles that quote studies like this one, only serve to confuse the general public.

If there are 3 opinions (which it ends up looking like we in the general public are being offered) then which one are we to believe?
This ends up doing a disservice to general humanity and to Climate Science in particular.

If no hiatus why all the effort to "explain" that hiatus with one theory after another.
First the winds changed and the heat was being ocean-buried.
Eddy Courant
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
This says more about the climate at Stanford.
cjones1
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
No cold days in hell is the result of the new study. Once upon a time there was no ice on Iceland...the climate cjanges over time. I don't know of any weatherman or climatologist who can accurately predict the future. It seems the data from the past is questionable, so the conclusion drawn is in question.
ogg_ogg
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
So, I doubt (and hope not) the last word has yet been written about the Pause. I do not believe it is "debunked". Claims to the contrary seem to me to be more confirmation bias than science. OTOH, I don't dispute (having insufficient information to do so) that 2014 and 15 will be 'highest on record". The deniers should really really really digest that. At some point, it is obvious that they will either have to admit that the average temperature has increased (or do most of them already?), relative to ANY baseline year or be relegated to the religious fringe. But we still are debating some silly things: 10 or 15 year "climate" is one of them. Perhaps even the word "climate" isn't ameniable to rigorous definition, idk. It seems to me it has to do with complex ecological systems and must include extinctions (on a local or regional level) rather than, say, droughts which persist for 5, 10 or 15 years. What I say? Look to the trees (and long term plant abundance).
denglish
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
ogg, there is no argument that the earth is in a warming epoch.

Relative to natural variance, nothing unusual is happening.

We do not know enough about climate science to justify gutting our economies, or our ethics. This is even more important when one can directly tie human prosperity to energy sources that output C02. We must be very careful about our energy policies, and the effects they will have.

Do we need clean alternatives? Yes. At the moment, there are none that can support humanity at Status Quo.
aksdad
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
Our results clearly show that ... there never was a hiatus, a pause or a slowdown...

Heh. Riiiight.

If you torture the data long enough you will get the results you want. Meanwhile, here's what the leading temperature indicators show:

HadCRUT4: http://www.cru.ue...erature/
NASA GISS: http://data.giss....gistemp/
UAH: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Hmmm, looks there was a pause in warming after 1998. And the satellite data says it's still happening. But don't take my word for it, look at the graphs yourself. "Pause buster" busted!
ogg_ogg
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
Frankly, the debate on climate change is all pretty pathetic. We have both sides with WAAAY too much confidence that they are right. We have confusion between what is scientific fact and what is economic fact. We have "scientists" prescribing what would literally be economically catastrophic "solutions" to stop global warming and expressing fears of catastrophic ecological (and hence economic) collapse. And we have amateur "scientists" claiming conspiracies and human fraility without a solid understanding of the underlying science. Pathetic. Its possible both are wrong, its possible both are right, its probable both are both.
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
axemaster, the satellites have been measuring since 1979. Here's what they show.

UAH: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
RSS: http://images.rem...ies.html

Where is the continued warming after 1998? I don't see it. 17 years of no warming is a pause.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Scientifically, a discrepancy between climate projections and observations could suggest that science has overstated Earth's sensitivity to the radiative force of the Sun.

Actually "science" hasn't overstated anything. A small group of alarmist climate scientists have. And the discrepancy is between the temperatures projected by the global climate models and actual temperatures. Even the IPCC acknowledges this in their latest AR5 report.

AR5 Technical Summary, Box TS.3, pg. 64:
http://www.climat....3-1.jpg

Detail of figure 1-4:
http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

AR5 Technical Summary Figure TS.14, pg. 87:
https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg

You can read the report yourself:
https://www.ipcc....ar5/wg1/

The technical summary is written by scientists, not "policymakers" (politicians).
plasmasrevenge
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
@ogg_ogg, you've failed to mention how the marketers have taken over the message. The most pathetic part is the frequent invitation to abandon THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST, and instead THINK WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK. It's an ends-justifies-the-means approach.

Also, with a public which has its own opinion, there is increasingly a conflict-of-interest between university professors who also do research -- because we want our educators to teach students to be independent thinkers, whereas the researchers increasingly want to control the beliefs of the public.

Meanwhile, nobody seems to notice that the statistics argument was previously -- and questionably -- used to bury Halton Arp and the sunspot-neutrino anti-correlation (and probably many others).

It's a much, much bigger mess than you've highlighted here, and it all suggests that we are simply not able to hear the reasonable voices above the noise.
aksdad
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
the Stanford findings—a detailed review of statistical methodology—would appear to be the final word on the subject

Most studies of global temperature data show a pause in warming. IPCC AR5 even talks about it. One study finds warming has continued. You really think that one study is the "final word"? File that statement under "the science is settled".
plasmasrevenge
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2015
Re: "The technical summary is written by scientists, not "policymakers" (politicians)."

You state this triumphantly, as though the fact that the public does not read the technical assessments is somehow a mistake. Yet, that is the very reason that we are having this conversation to begin with -- and part of the design from the start -- because if the public DID read those summaries, they would have realized that the models are really quite speculative and problematic, to begin with.

So, not sure where you're going with that, in light of the obvious station coverage problems, the grid problems (like not being able to model clouds), the current qualitative nature of the water feedback mechanism, the computation issues (and the shortcuts they inspire in the models), the failure to agree on physical processes, the top-of-the-atmosphere assumptions, the failure to include any charge change phenomena from the solar wind, ETC, ETC, ETC
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2015
But despite having referenced the June NOAA study debunking the 'hiatus', the Met Office report did not call it into question.

Think about that. If the people who collect, analyze and publish the data that shows there WAS a pause in warming after 1998 choose not to question the NOAA study "debunking" THEIR OWN FINDINGS, what does that tell you?

As the Climategate e-mails showed, there is a core group of climate scientists at the Met Office, at NOAA, at NASA, Penn State, and a few other institutions who are so politicized that they refuse to publicly acknowledge problems with their "findings" because it would reveal to the public that there are problems and uncertainties and the science is far from settled. They think action is more important than truth.

Richard A. Mueller, physicist at UC Berkeley and climate change "believer", castigates this cabal for their perversion of science here: https://www.youtu...0EPWgkEI
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2015
plasmasrevenge, there are lots of problems with the IPCC report too; the most egregious being the exclusion of the wealth of studies that either don't support the preconceived notion that humans are causing warming or even challenge it. The point is that if you dig into the report a little, you will see that the technical data in the report itself does not support the conclusions made in the Summary for Policymakers. The former report was written and edited by scientists, many of them alarmists; the latter was written by politicians--all of whom are alarmists and, frankly, dumber than a sack of hammers. It was the Summary for Policymakers that the media focused on, because most journalists are, well, as bright as those politicians.

The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?
plasmasrevenge
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
Re: "The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?"

Because they believe that humans are destroying the planet, and even if the science turns out to be wrong, they tell themselves that they are doing humanity a service because the ends justifies the means.

Meanwhile, the obfuscation dates very, very far back to Willard Libby's desire to vindicate radiocarbon dating. Libby seems to have falsified his data to ram this technique through, and nearly all of his initial assumptions have since been invalidated. The creationist debate has to date obscured Libby's data fudging.

What that means is that even those who think they are doing the world a favor cannot even trace the problems with their analysis to its start.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 17, 2015
The biggest flaw in this study is assuming these losers care.
Republicanism is about "sticking it to liberals", nothing else.
It doesn't matter to them that it's not even the most profitable energy source, it doesn't matter that only one coal plant has been commissioned in the past 7 years, it doesn't matter that China is building enough renewable power sources to power the entire US..

Can't fight psychology with statistics, all climate deniers are either stupid or psychotic. It's just a retarded thing to get behind, why not find a real problem to fix? why would you bet the entire world on Rush being right, he's some guy with a microphone
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
If only liberals would stop driving gas powered cars, and reduce their consumption, so that republicans don't have to, we could reduce emissions significantly. But all they care about is sticking it to republicans.

Will someone please apprise the residents of NYC and DC that their cities are under water. I don't think they know.

You're using an outdated definition of wet.
Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2015
Will someone please apprise the residents of NYC and DC that their cities are under water. I don't think they know.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Will someone please apprise the residents of NYC and DC that their cities are under water. I don't think they know.


They will know once being-wet is statistically re-analyzed and adjusted.
rossim22
1.5 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2015
Any scientist who is so sure of how something works that they consider it the only plausible explanation is doing themselves a disservice. Science relies on skepticism and the insight which stems from that quality.

I dissent the mainstream interpretation of global warming, not because I think it's wrong, but because I think human deposition of atmospheric CO2 is only a fraction of the real processes influencing the climate.
greenonions
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2015
rossim

I dissent the mainstream interpretation of global warming, not because I think it's wrong, but because I think human deposition of atmospheric CO2 is only a fraction of the real processes influencing the climate.
So what are the other factors, and what percentage do each account for? - with support.
leetennant
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
I pray before I take every step. I mean those scientists are "sure" that gravity will keep working but who knows, right? I take a healthy scepticism to everything I choose to believe.
mytwocts
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2015
I pray before I take every step.

So you walk slowly and mumbling. People probably help you cross the street.
Death, taxes and that praying does not help, the only certainties we have.
mytwocts
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2015
Will someone please apprise the residents of NYC and DC that their cities are under water. I don't think they know.

Perhaps you want to include the residents of New Orleans.
Wait, they already know.
mytwocts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015
x
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
The paper can be found here:
http://paperity.o...e-hiatus
Judging a paper without reading it is not very meaningful.
ThomasQuinn
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
Negationists get extremely angry when confronted with solid scientific research. Who'd have thought?
FainAvis
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
You can pray that GW is not real, but take your wellies to bed hey.
Pelayar
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
I do read the comments from the diehard deniers and what puzzles me is that every single one of them lives in the United States of America. Nowhere else on Planet Earth has climate change been turned into a political issue. In ROTW (the rest of the world) we realize that these North American morons will stick to their NRA guns but we are absolutely sick and tired of their troglodyte arguments
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2015
"Re: "The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?"

Because they believe that humans are destroying the planet, and even if the science turns out to be wrong, they tell themselves that they are doing humanity a service because the ends justifies the means."

Plasma I think you are 100% correct. The liberals are suffering from a huge superiority complex.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
While we are on the subject of the end justifies the means:

http://www.climat...mpanies/
ThomasQuinn
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
I do read the comments from the diehard deniers and what puzzles me is that every single one of them lives in the United States of America. Nowhere else on Planet Earth has climate change been turned into a political issue. In ROTW (the rest of the world) we realize that these North American morons will stick to their NRA guns but we are absolutely sick and tired of their troglodyte arguments


Oh, we have those people in The Netherlands, too. But they are suspect because they tend to hold other bizarre views as well, often either orthodox Christian views (which we, unlike some of the US people, don't see as praiseworthy) or New Age-BS, very frequently (I'd say 'in a vast majority of the cases', but evidently I don't have hard evidence for that) they believe in lots of other conspiracy theories regarding UFOs and aliens, and they only have one political party that shares their views, and it happens to be a far-right one with a tendency to nominate literal criminals.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
The biggest flaw in this study is assuming these losers care.

I pray before I take every step.

what puzzles me is that every single one of them lives in the United States of America

The AGW position (well, I didn't get what green onions said, that person is ignored). Absolutely nothing in their posts that leads one to think they have any substance in their viewpoints.

I imagine these articles were put in to bolster the AGW crowd. The opposite has happened; its been a resounding defeat for them.
outersphere
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
Well, it seems like the Denier morons have firmly taken over what was once a rational forum of discussion. The same ignorant scripted nonsense pervades here as well now.

The only rational comment here is that from axemaster with his recognition that the positive energy budget trend is the only Scientific observation actually needed. Adding energy to a Chaotic System results in multiple manifested effects of that energy.
stoltobot
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
Wow. I thought this was a physics forum, not a tinfoil hat site.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
Well, it seems like the Denier morons have firmly taken over what was once a rational forum of discussion.

Insult is the last refuge of the exhausted intellect.

A recently posted, very good article, re: how reliable climate models are and some of the mechanisms of climate that aren't included in models is here:
http://wattsupwit...-models/

spencerpencer
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
The biggest flaw in this study is assuming these losers care.
Republicanism is about "sticking it to liberals", nothing else.
It doesn't matter to them that it's not even the most profitable energy source, it doesn't matter that only one coal plant has been commissioned in the past 7 years, it doesn't matter that China is building enough renewable power sources to power the entire US..

Can't fight psychology with statistics, all climate deniers are either stupid or psychotic. It's just a retarded thing to get behind, why not find a real problem to fix? why would you bet the entire world on Rush being right, he's some guy with a microphone


And the fact that this comment had 5 stars before I came along shows that this isn't about science at all. It's about gotcha-ism and politics. Your attitudes are pathetic. No one will ever believe you even with all the evidence in the world because you're being a d*ck about it. Not fair? Then you don't understand human nature.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
Well, it seems like the Denier morons have firmly taken over what was once a rational forum of discussion. The same ignorant scripted nonsense pervades here as well now.

The only rational comment here is that from axemaster with his recognition that the positive energy budget trend is the only Scientific observation actually needed. Adding energy to a Chaotic System results in multiple manifested effects of that energy.

Does anyone else find it ironic that this person bemoans the disappearance of rationality while calling people morons?
Lino235
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
Let me see: the "pause" in warming never occurred. So, what does this mean? That Al Gore's 'prediction' never took place. What happened to his dire predictions based on "global warming SCIENCE"?

You can't have it both ways: the pause did not occur, but don't mind those predictions that have been made. One way or the other it's all laughable.
denglish
2 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?

It may be because C02 output is benefiting humanity hugely.

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Take out enabling factors, and the result is dependence.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
How desperate are the AGWs?

http://www.thegua...b-gdneco

They want to make skepticism illegal.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
18 years, dozens of peer-reviewed excuses, each debunking the previous one, that justified the pause. So, what do you do when you're out of lies? Well, deny that which forced you to lie in the first place. Brilliant.
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 18, 2015
For those who claim the earth will be inhospitable by the end of the century, I'd like to sign a contract for my great-grandchildren to purchase your land holdings at 5% of their current value in 2090. I think this is a very generous offer for something that is going to be worthless. Any takers?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
I would thank God for the settled science, but since I'm now absolutely sure one does not exist, there is no need to.
mytwocts
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?

It may be because C02 output is benefiting humanity hugely.

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Take out enabling factors, and the result is dependence.


What is this crap, denglish? By the same reasoning:
Humanity is producing an increasing amount of waste.
Our wealth increases at the same pace. So waste is good.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
askdad says
The real problem is that the alarmists--in climate science, government, and the media--WANT to believe that humans are causing global warming so badly that they ignore evidence to the contrary. The question is: why?


And yet the evidence actually supports the idea that human activity is loading the atmosphere with green house gas - and causing the current warming trend. Here is a quick synopsis - https://www.skept...iate.htm Interestingly - when the parrots make their claims (such as rossim did above) about how the evidence does not support this conclusion - and you ask them to provide evidence to the contrary (ie. - what is the driver of the current warming trend) - they go silent.
Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
Let's just build a wall. That'll do it.
outersphere
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2015
Name 3 models, provide 15 lines of code from any of the 3 and an exact citation of where you found it and your personal assessment of the model and of course don't leave out your "qualifications" for making the assessment.
Your wattsupwith that reference is, of course, absurd.
Oh, re your "Insult is the last refuge of the exhausted intellect." comment. It wasn;t an insult, moron, ity was an exact and accurate taxonomic label.

A recently posted, very good article, re: how reliable climate models are and some of the mechanisms of climate that aren't included in models is here:
http://wattsupwit...-models/


outersphere
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
Let me see: the "pause" in warming never occurred. So, what does this mean? That Al Gore's 'prediction' never took place. What happened to his dire predictions based on "global warming SCIENCE"?

You can't have it both ways: the pause did not occur, but don't mind those predictions that have been made. One way or the other it's all laughable.


Nonsense, provide an exact citation of what Al Gore said.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
So yeah deniers, bring it on. Let see your BS crap for science sh*t and your "my balls are bigger than yours" BS. So, just to show how interconnected republican trash scum licks are with the denial of global warming, lets have a vote! All in favor of destroying the world with a massive CO2 greenhouse cooker, when you post your comment here, say AYE at the very beginning of you comment. If you want your political affiliation added, say AYER or if your opposed to a Global warming heat death for mankind, add NAYR for Republican or NAYD for Democrat. Or use AYEI for denier independent. That way we can all cut through the BS and know who to blame and who to flame. In the science of global climate change we all want to know who is on whose side.

howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
NAYD: Here is a interactive paper for all of the AYE "I'm a denier" goon squad that clearly demonstrates the so called "Hockey Stick" in real time. It's a click right here if you deniers dare...

https://www.clima...perature

ON the very first interactive graph, if you use your scroll wheel up and compress the time and put an imaginary line from low point to high point, that gentleman, is your hockey stick. Call it a fishhook if you really want to, but the point to note is the global temps are way out of normal due to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere from massive human fossil fuel combustion. And realistically, our situation is only going to get worst.

At best, wish your grandkids survival skills.



ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
"Just for the record, here are the 20 climate scientists eager to jail those who disagree with them:

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
http://www.steyno...ofession
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
NAYD: Sign me up too @Rygg. I'll happily join those 21 scientists.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2015
"Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT"
http://www.steyno...ofession

How many AGWites who claim not to be totalitarian socialists support your fellow travelers in state prosecution of those who don't agree with you?
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
NAYD:
How many AGWites who claim not to be totalitarian socialists support your fellow travelers in state prosecution of those who don't agree with you?

Because you full of it @R2. Your the totalitarian. You are the toad that wants to impose total corporate control on people, profit for the corporation and the oligarchs living on the tit of the corporate cow. Too bad it's not going to be you on that tit. Lol. Fool.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2015
What is this crap, denglish?

It is a study that shows the use of fossil fuels are what put humanity into a place of prosperity, and also how the use of fossil fuels protect nature.

You should read it.

It wasn;t an insult,

Emotional much?

provide an exact citation of what Al Gore said

I like this one:
https://www.youtu...yTbPwhlw

So yeah deniers, bring it on.

This person is very emotional.

In the science of global climate change we all want to know who is on whose side.

This is a good point. One can be on the side of failed models:
https://higherrev...lity.png
denglish
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2015
On the side that alters data to support a narrative:

http://www.woodfo....5/trend
http://www.woodfo.../trend/p

On the side that would add persecution to the scientific method:
NAYD: Sign me up too @Rygg. I'll happily join those 21 scientists.


Or on the side that thinks it may be a good idea to know exactly what is happening before we cripple modern societies and our ethics.
denglish
2 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2015
My link to graph showing the alteration of HADSST data didn't include the alteration of the data (3) compared to the unaltered data (2). My bad, here it is again:

http://www.woodfo....5/trend
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2015
What they FAIL to mention is if the pause data was flawed, so was the prior warming.

OOOPS!

Gosh, I hate lies in media.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2015
What they FAIL to mention is if the pause data was flawed, so was the prior warming.

OOOPS!

Gosh, I hate lies in media.


How? That doesn't even make sense.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.