The Top 30 Excuses For The 18 Year Pause In Warming

[Shady]

I stumbled across this today while doing some reading. It's a somewhat lighter-sided look at some of the excuses made to explain a very serious topic, the hiatus of warming over the last decade and a half.

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming

3) Chinese coal use
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’?
6) Volcanic aerosols

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’

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

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/28/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-the-18-year-pause-in-global-warming-if-you-cant-explain-the-pause-you-cant-explain-the-cause/

Remember. if you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

[On Guard for Thee]

What makes you think there's been a pause?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Shady]

My first post was a more humourous look at things. This is a more serious discussion of said warming pause.by NASA climate scientist Norman Loeb.

NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’

Norman Loeb delivered a lecture entitled, “The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?” at the NASA Langley Research Center auditorium on Tuesday. The talk addressed challenges to scientists and increased skepticism among climate change skeptics due to the recent “hiatus” of global warming.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/nasa-climate-scientist-explains-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

Edited August 8, 2014 by Shady

[Mighty AC]

My first post was a more humourous look at things. This is a more serious discussion of said warming pause.by NASA climate scientist Norman Loeb.

NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’

Norman Loeb delivered a lecture entitled, “The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?” at the NASA Langley Research Center auditorium on Tuesday. The talk addressed challenges to scientists and increased skepticism among climate change skeptics due to the recent “hiatus” of global warming.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/nasa-climate-scientist-explains-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

You may want to read this: Conservative media is now just making things up about climate scientists

The Washington Times is claiming a NASA scientist cast doubt on global warming. Too bad that never happened

On the scale of climate-denying media crimes, the Washington Times has hit a new low. There’s deliberately misrepresenting the science. Then there’s misrepresenting the press release, which is what the conservative news outlet appears to have done.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Mighty AC

[On Guard for Thee]

You may want to read this: Conservative media is now just making things up about climate scientists

You would think if they were going to "cherry pick" and misquote they would have tried not to be so blatantly obvious about it. Or is it just ineptness?

[Shady]

You may want to read this: Conservative media is now just making things up about climate scientists

I didn't link to a conservative media source.

[On Guard for Thee]

Down in flames.

[TimG]

You may want to read this:

Why? It is is nothing but alarmist drivel which completely misrepresents the data that we have today.

[On Guard for Thee]

Everything is "alarmist drivel" if it disagrees with the head in the sand naysayers.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[TimG]

Everything is "alarmist drivel" if it disagrees with the head in the sand naysayers.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/noaa-sotc-claim-that-2012-was-warmest-la-nina-year-is-wrong/

NOAA’s Definition and Data Contradict Their Claim That 2012 Was The Warmest La Niña Year

The report has since been corrected but it is an excellent example of how various government agencies misrepresent the data into order to create fear and draw funding.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/noaa-sotc-claim-that-2012-was-warmest-la-nina-year-is-wrong/

NOAA’s Definition and Data Contradict Their Claim That 2012 Was The Warmest La Niña Year

The report has since been corrected but it is an excellent example of how various government agencies misrepresent the data into order to create fear and draw funding.

NOAA has been around forever. They don't have to bullshit to get funding.

[TimG]

NOAA has been around forever. They don't have to bullshit to get funding.

Bureaucrats always want more funding. The NOAA budget has more than doubled over the the last 15 years - must faster than the rate of inflation or the growth in the economy.

[On Guard for Thee]

Bureaucrats always want more funding. The NOAA budget has more than doubled over the the last 15 years - must faster than the rate of inflation or the growth in the economy.

So why then would you attempt to dismiss their findings? Qualified scientists with lot's of money and no reason to hoodwink us. Might be a good idea to pay attention don't you think?

[waldo]

you already tried the same pause/plateau shyte in another thread...... see this failed MLW ShadyThread from about a year ago - here:

[WestCoastRunner]

you already tried the same pause/plateau shyte in another thread...... see this failed MLW ShadyThread from about a year ago - here:

that's priceless!

[TimG]

So why then would you attempt to dismiss their findings? Qualified scientists with lot's of money and no reason to hoodwink us. Might be a good idea to pay attention don't you think?

Puhleeze.. where is your evidence that the opinion of scientists was accurately reflected in a politically motivated report?

[On Guard for Thee]

Puhleeze.. where is your evidence that the opinion of scientists was accurately reflected in a politically motivated report?

Where is your evidence it wasn't?

[TimG]

Where is your evidence it wasn't?

The data has been misrepresented and "spun" to support an alarmist narrative. It is unlikely that any scientist worthy of the name would have supported it but there are plenty of people pretending to be scientists that may have. I don't know which. If I assume that the report was driven by bureaucrats then I am giving NOAA scientists the benefit of the doubt.

[On Guard for Thee]

The data has been misrepresented and "spun" to support an alarmist narrative. It is unlikely that any scientist worthy of the name would have supported it but there are plenty of people pretending to be scientists that may have. I don't know which. If I assume that the report was driven by bureaucrats then I am giving NOAA scientists the benefit of the doubt.

I guess you are assuming all those people who ork for various governments who make up the IPCC have no real credentials as well?

[TimG]

I guess you are assuming all those people who ork for various governments who make up the IPCC have no real credentials as well?

It is not a question of credentials - it is a question of integrity. Plenty of people with credentials have no integrity. When I see government reports spin the data to support an alarmists narrative that tells me the authors don't have any integrity.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your argument holds no water. Why would people with credentials "spin" data that they know full well will be peer reviewed, which would if found to be faulty, erode the very credentials that got them the job in the first place? Maybe you like those margin of tin hat guys better.

[TimG]

Your argument holds no water. Why would people with credentials "spin" data that they know full well will be peer reviewed, which would if found to be faulty, erode the very credentials that got them the job in the first place? Maybe you like those margin of tin hat guys better.

ROTFL - the audience for these reports are not scientists - they are for their politicians and activists who want them as propaganda. On top of that the world is filled with people who feel validated by pseudo scientific reports that tell what they want to believe which gives the authors a large audience of zombies who tell them how wonderful their work is. Edited August 8, 2014 by TimG

[Shady]

...... see this failed MLW ShadyThread from about a year ago - here:

NASA scientists have confirmed the pause. You're a denier.

[eyeball]

The report has since been corrected but it is an excellent example of how various government agencies misrepresent the data into order to create fear and draw funding.

Kinda like the Dept of Homeland Security?

[waldo]

NASA scientists have confirmed the pause. You're a denier.

and what would you like to be labeled for your purposeful choice to perpetuate a falsehood... just a few posts back, MLW member 'Mighty AC' took the time to actually respond to your continued nonsense... to provide a refutation to your original linked reference - here:

but what's the deelio here? Why did you start another thread? Like I said/showed, you already tried (and failed) with this in an earlier thread of yours. Why not just resurrect that failed thread instead of creating another one?