Posted on 09/11/2014 4:07:36 PM PDT by Signalman
An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant pause in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What pause? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) Coincidence!
11) Pine aerosols
12) Its not so unusual and no more than natural variability
13) Scientists looking at the wrong lousy data http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) Global brightening has stopped
19) Ahistorical media
20) Its the hottest decade ever Decadal averages used to hide the pause [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results
23) Not scientifically relevant
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO 34) Solar cycles 35) Scientists forgot to look at our models and observations and ask questions
36) The models really do explain the pause [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes all natural factors allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberths missing heat is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed [debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: Every week theres a new explanation of the hiatus]
39) Slowdown due to a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum
40) The pause is probably just barely statistically significant with 95% confidence:The slowdown is probably just barely statistically significant and not meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate because anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate] 42) Trenberths missing heat really is missing and is not supported by the data itself in the real ocean:
it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some layer of the ocean is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic. [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. Thats actually quite impressive progress. [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Oceans is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says knows the data better than I do, says in the very same NYT article that it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some layer of the ocean is robustly supported by the data itself [Josh Willis]
45) We dont have a theory that fits all of the data:
Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data [Andrew Dessler]
46) We dont have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the pause is due to such natural cycles:
If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I dont think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I dont think we even know if it IS a cycle. [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that its purely internal variability, which Im not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future. [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
Its the Atlantic, not Pacific, and the hiatus in the warming should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the pause are not science done right:
If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The hiatus is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system. [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that the data are inadequate to answer the question, how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, we could have forecast the pause if we had the tools of the future back then [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]
52) Unusual climate anomaly of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]
'Cause I SAID so.
The lefts religion.
Percentage of methane in the earths atmosphere: 0.00017% or ZERO point ZERO ZERO ZERO.
If the current political climate in the USA continues, the odds that radical Islam will obtain a nuclear device and use it possibly starting a nuclear war which will do wonders for the environment: 100%
And what do liberals focus on?
The lack of warming is one of the effects of global warming and provides the most striking evidence yet that warming is real and time is much shorter than we thought.
Yep, Global Warming snow hitting the Dakotas as we blog.
But what if there is global warming and you did nothing?
ping
Wyoming last week had snow. Earliest on record per the article.
Like the gambler who just lost 5 coin tosses in a row, the next coin toss has bound to be in his favor. And if you play enough lottery numbers the model says your has a warmer than average chance of winning.
The so called "Precautionary Principle" can be far more destructive than doing nothing. Suppose that the Holocene (present inter-glacial) ends and we have made no preparations for it because we have assumed global warming then mankind is going to be really in a bind. As it is there are estimates that as many as 7,000 additional winter deaths in the UK alone were attributable to the high cost of fuel caused in part by subsidies to "re-newables "
A classic example of the unintended consequences of the "Precautionary Principle" is D.D.T. Its use was banned and conservative estimates are that hundreds of thousands in Africa and Asia have died from diseases carried by insect vectors.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.