Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like this?
This map seems to show high CO2 levels just where you'd expect them. Google says this graphic is from Judith Curry's blog and give this link: Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress but I do not find the graph or any related discussion there. Google or Judy has hosed something.
And, that would be human activity.
40 or 50 explanations? Why don't you find us 10?
OK...Unlike you, I can actually provide material to support my claims... By the way...my bad...the actual number is now up to 63....
Each one is listed there with a link to the original article...
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming
Here they are, follow the links if you like....deny if your religion demands...someone may be interested in seeing them all in one place.
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" http://
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 Oscillation
17) 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 [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
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"
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth's "missing heat" is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s 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) Trenberth's '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:
"After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That's actually quite impressive progress."
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 Ocean’s 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 don't 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 don't 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future." [Andrew Dessler]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It's 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:
"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
53) Competition" with two natural ocean oscillations
54) 'Global quasi-stationary waves' from natural ocean oscillations
55) Reduced warming in North Atlantic subpolar gyre
56) Satellites underestimate cooling from volcanic aerosols
57) Increase in mid- and upper level clouds
58) Colder eastern Pacific and reduced heat loss in other oceans
59) A "zoo of short-term trends"
60) IPCC Synthesis Report excuses for the "pause": volcanoes, solar activity, possible redistribution of heat:
61) Climate Policies?!
62) "Global warming causes no global warming"
63) Global warming will speed up after a "pause" due to "change of fundamental understanding about how greenhouse warming comes about"
I see. So you accept all the science, until it conflicts with your wingnut political positions. Talk about slavish political correctness. LOLYeah, mea culpa. Should have seen that coming. The last 5 minutes they crap all over the previous 1:45 with the "Scientists say that saying GHG's are changing the planet" BS.
Oh well, enjoy it anyway
Funny, I thought you stated the oceans mix. If they mix, then how is that even possible? Or are you saying the ocean only mixes to satisfy your claims? ahhhhhahahahahahahah, got it. Funny stuff Crickster.The current record el Nino shows that the ocean did indeed, consume more thermal energy than usual. And Karl et al 2015 shows that no pause ever happened. I'm happy with those. And the day I take Climate Depot's interpretation of what a given paper says, is the day I turn in my "Adult Human Being With Normal Intellect" membership card.
that's because everywhere else where there are many more humans there isn't as much. hmmmm that seems unlikely don't you think? I mean the US has all of those cars and furnaces and things, Air conditioning, and cars and cattle farting, I mean why would there not be most CO2 present there? We are the bad guys to CO2 as i recall.Yes, I was familiar with that map. I do not know what that other map is showing. Perhaps it is a model based on population or industry or both. I would consider deleting it but it's too late.
So, I was going to ask you this earlier. Why would a rainforest produce CO2? All those plants take it in and release oxygen. The only thing I can think of is deforestation, particularly by burning, though decomposing plant matter also releases significant amounts of CO2, just more slowly.
I see. So you accept all the science, until it conflicts with your wingnut political positions. Talk about slavish political correctness. LOLYeah, mea culpa. Should have seen that coming. The last 5 minutes they crap all over the previous 1:45 with the "Scientists say that saying GHG's are changing the planet" BS.
Oh well, enjoy it anyway
Polar vortex to usher widespread cold, snow chances into US during mid-January
Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues
How can that be? Obummer spoke and demanded they all listen.By the way..........the US public is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less concerned about some of the nonsense coming from the scientists.
But don't take my word for it...............
How can that be? Obummer spoke and demanded they all listen.By the way..........the US public is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less concerned about some of the nonsense coming from the scientists.
But don't take my word for it...............
How can that be? Obummer spoke and demanded they all listen.By the way..........the US public is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less concerned about some of the nonsense coming from the scientists.
But don't take my word for it...............
And, that would be human activity.
Figure 1: NASA-provided OCO-2 data for Oct 1 – Nov 11, 2014
Figure 2 NASA-provided OCO-2 data for Nov 21 – Dec 27, 2014
Figure 5 : Processed data from Jan 1 – Feb 15, 2015
Figure 6 : Processed data from Feb 16 – Mar 31, 2015
Figure 7 : Processed data from Apr 1 – May 15, 2015
Figure 8 : Processed data from May 16 – Jun 30, 2015
Really interesting how the map varies according to the time period. But the denielists will pretend that the one map says it all.
That particular image shows how in that particular month, agricultural burning in the southern hemisphere is emitting CO2, while plant growth over the northern hemisphere growing season has absorbed the industrial CO2 there. The other images clearly showed how vast amounts of CO2 build up from the industrial areas of the northern hemisphere when the plants aren't pulling CO2 out of the air.
Naturally, you and the other deniers ignored those images. You're being deliberately dishonest. Hence why the whole world ignores you, and why you're reduced to making endless weepy conspiracy threads on message boards that only attract the same few personality-disorder-afflicted political cultists.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for you deniers to finally admit you were bamboozled by your political cult leaders, and just pack it in? After all, it's not like you're fooling anyone, or accomplishing anything other than embarrassing yourselves further. And just think of all the productive activities you could be engaged in if you weren't obsessively pushing the dogma of your dying cult here.
