Who pressed the pause button?

[ScienceRocks]

Who pressed the pause button?

The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained

BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over.

This is the opposite of what happened at first. As evidence piled up that temperatures were not rising much, some scientists dismissed it as a blip.[U] The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75[/U] (see chart), even though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth getting excited about.

Global warming: Who pressed the pause button? | The Economist

I believe it hasn't warmed at all since 2001 when you consider the surface temperature of the earth(temperature at the surface). Most of the warm and cold years have had nearly every thing to do with the enso.

Let's be honest with ourselves and come to the conclusion that the factors that had stalled it out in the 50s-70s are what's occurring now. China and india pumping shit into atmosphere has stalled the fucker for the time being!

 

[westwall]

Yep, the fact that this is not putting out as much energy has nothing to do with it...

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the fact that this is not putting out as much energy has nothing to do with it...

Very good point, Westwall. Sun not putting out as much energy, China and India putting out vast amounts of aerosols, which have a cooling effect. And 2013 was an ENSO neutral year. Yet it came in as the fourth warmest year on record. The first three were all El Nino years.

This year looks like a possible El Nino year, maybe even a strong one. Should that be the case, and we have no major volcanic eruption, then we have a real test. If we set a whole bunch of new warming records, then you are full of shit, Westwall. And, if it is a strong El Nino, and no records are set, then I am.

Well, Westwall, which is it to be?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're already full of shit, Rocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're already full of shit, Rocks.

Then we can put you down as one that states that even with an El Nino, this year will not rank in the top 10?

 

[westwall]

Yep, the fact that this is not putting out as much energy has nothing to do with it...

Very good point, Westwall. Sun not putting out as much energy, China and India putting out vast amounts of aerosols, which have a cooling effect. And 2013 was an ENSO neutral year. Yet it came in as the fourth warmest year on record. The first three were all El Nino years.

This year looks like a possible El Nino year, maybe even a strong one. Should that be the case, and we have no major volcanic eruption, then we have a real test. If we set a whole bunch of new warming records, then you are full of shit, Westwall. And, if it is a strong El Nino, and no records are set, then I am.

Well, Westwall, which is it to be?

4th warmest thanks to weather stations sited at airports with miles of tarmac around them to warm the air. No, when you add in ALL the weather stations, you know the ones that NOAA dropped from the system because....well they were ACCURATELY sited....then the story is totally different.

But you knew that. You just don' care.

 

[flacaltenn]

In an alternate universe --- GoldiRocks will win that bet..
Shame that NOW -- the warmer-swarms have to hedge their bets on warming to including ocean cycles and the sun.. I consider that a win for the rag-tag skeptic gang....

 

[SSDD]

In an alternate universe --- GoldiRocks will win that bet..
Shame that NOW -- the warmer-swarms have to hedge their bets on warming to including ocean cycles and the sun.. I consider that a win for the rag-tag skeptic gang....

Like a frog in hot water...they don't even realize that they have changed their story from CO2 being the control knob to "many factors".....I guess eventually they will be forced to drop CO2 from the argument all together to keep from being laughed off the board.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In an alternate universe --- GoldiRocks will win that bet..
Shame that NOW -- the warmer-swarms have to hedge their bets on warming to including ocean cycles and the sun.. I consider that a win for the rag-tag skeptic gang....

Like a frog in hot water...they don't even realize that they have changed their story from CO2 being the control knob to "many factors".....I guess eventually they will be forced to drop CO2 from the argument all together to keep from being laughed off the board.

They let the alarmist control the argument that would always push for the worse case solutions. Should of explained to the public from the start that co2 was just a forcing within the grand sham of things...That one chart with negative and positive forcings showing how things are balanced is the best graph they have. The thing is there is quite a bit of debate over error within the sensitivity of the forcings. Reading the papers you will see that aerosols and different methods of thinking on co2 forcing are being debated.

Like one group will argue with models, another will argue with paleo-climate data and another will argue based on current events. Believe me, to say there's no debate is hurting the science. On the other hand going around saying it isn't so isn't helping either.

 

[westwall]

In an alternate universe --- GoldiRocks will win that bet..
Shame that NOW -- the warmer-swarms have to hedge their bets on warming to including ocean cycles and the sun.. I consider that a win for the rag-tag skeptic gang....

Me too. Remember when it was only CO2 that could do anything? No natural variability at all...... Now look at them.

 

[westwall]

In an alternate universe --- GoldiRocks will win that bet..
Shame that NOW -- the warmer-swarms have to hedge their bets on warming to including ocean cycles and the sun.. I consider that a win for the rag-tag skeptic gang....

Like a frog in hot water...they don't even realize that they have changed their story from CO2 being the control knob to "many factors".....I guess eventually they will be forced to drop CO2 from the argument all together to keep from being laughed off the board.

They let the alarmist control the argument that would always push for the worse case solutions. Should of explained to the public from the start that co2 was just a forcing within the grand sham of things...That one chart with negative and positive forcings showing how things are balanced is the best graph they have. The thing is there is quite a bit of debate over error within the sensitivity of the forcings. Reading the papers you will see that aerosols and different methods of thinking on co2 forcing are being debated.

Like one group will argue with models, another will argue with paleo-climate data and another will argue based on current events. Believe me, to say there's no debate is hurting the science. On the other hand going around saying it isn't so isn't helping either.

If CO2 truly is a forcer.....which based on continuing observations is becoming ever more unlikely. But, you can't get money from people unless they're scared. That's why all the chicken little shenanigans.....the problem is eventually you cry wolf one too many times....

 

[Abraham3]

If CO2 truly is a forcer.....which based on continuing observations is becoming ever more unlikely.

And based on this observation it has become ever more unlikely that your opinions are even worth reading.

Show us a real climate scientist who thinks the last 15 years are evidence that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.

 

[westwall]

If CO2 truly is a forcer.....which based on continuing observations is becoming ever more unlikely.

And based on this observation it has become ever more unlikely that your opinions are even worth reading.

Show us a real climate scientist who thinks the last 15 years are evidence that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.

Real climate scientists have shown they have a extremely poor understanding of the physical world and it's influences. As evidenced by their retreat from CO2 being the sole cause of every climatic "event" they ever thought of.

The greenhouse effect is real. There is no doubt of that. THE DOMINANT GHG is water vapor. Of that there is likewise no doubt. What is now severely in doubt is whether CO2, as a trace gas, can have any impact whatsoever.

The climate fraud crowd are desperate to show some form of "control knob" horse manure effect so that they can continue to lobby for taxes on a gas critical to life on this planet.

That's all they can think of. They ignored real science and the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to steal peoples money and generate a method to control the economies of the world.

Politics boyo, that's all they are about...politics. Science and the scientific method are anathema to these modern day Lysenkoists.

 

[SSDD]

They let the alarmist control the argument that would always push for the worse case solutions. Should of explained to the public from the start that co2 was just a forcing within the grand sham of things...That one chart with negative and positive forcings showing how things are balanced is the best graph they have. The thing is there is quite a bit of debate over error within the sensitivity of the forcings. Reading the papers you will see that aerosols and different methods of thinking on co2 forcing are being debated.

Like one group will argue with models, another will argue with paleo-climate data and another will argue based on current events. Believe me, to say there's no debate is hurting the science. On the other hand going around saying it isn't so isn't helping either.

CO2 may be a forcing but it is forcing cool. How stupid is it to say that adding radiative gasses to an atmosphere reduces its ability to cool radiatively? If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere would be zero....is the claim that adding radiative gasses to the atmosphere reduces the ability of the atmosphere to radiatively cool to less than zero? How silly is that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Im seeing a lot of theories here!!!!


And that's the whole point.......nobody knows shit about shit at this point.







Please.....lets not call science, "science" when its not. Anybody with a smidge of integrity knows......in 2014, there is proof of >>>


nOtHiNg




How many "models" have to be off by miles for some to FINALLY come to the conclusion that climate science is akin to a weekend of results in Atlantic City!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, debate and looking at where we want wrong is the first step towards understanding. I say its a good thing.