A Possible Explanation for the "Pause" in Global Warming

[Mithrae]

You are free to debate against opponents of your own construction for as long as you like. The fact remains that there has been no warming for fifteen years (or at least ten, even according to uberwarmist Hansen). As I posted to 3G earlier, no one disputes the recorded temperature record. The debate is about causation and climate impact.eace

:roll: And you are free to live in fantasy-land for as long as you like. The 2010s are shaping up hotter than the 2000s, which in turn were hotter than the 1990s - and you assert that "there has been no warming for fifteen years." The graph from James Hansen's own paper matches the 5-year mean I posted (and the individual year graph I linked to), with the advantage of showing the corresponding el nino and la nina effects. With the strongest el nino of the century, 1998 in this set of surface temperatures was nevertheless beaten by 2005, 2007 and 2010 with much more modest el ninos, and the 1999/2000 low has been beaten by subsequent la nina years also - yet you assert that "there has been no warming for fifteen years."

And Hansen did not say there's been no warming for ten years, except to those who think context is irrelevant:
"Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. . . . The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade..."

You are free to fixate solely on surface temperature data, ignore the atmosphere and oceans, take scientists' quotes out of context pretending that they agree with you - and then add another five or six years on top of that, directly in the face of all the facts! Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously :lol:



##########################
##########################

We seem to be in agreement that the climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables.

That is almost exactly the opposite of what I posted, which pretty much sums up the level of conversation going on here I suppose.

You can dogmatically assert that climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables, if you like.

I reckon that if we can learn as much as we have about things like the human body and brain - which are significantly more complex than climate systems, albeit easier to study and with many more decades of research already done - it probably won't be too long before we've got all the important factors of climate science sorted out. The fact that observations so far have been mostly within the lower uncertainty ranges of previous projections suggests that they've made considerable progress, but aren't quite there yet.

But not knowing everything does not mean they know nothing :doh

 

[Jack Hays]

:roll: And you are free to live in fantasy-land for as long as you like. The 2010s are shaping up hotter than the 2000s, which in turn were hotter than the 1990s - and you assert that "there has been no warming for fifteen years." The graph from James Hansen's own paper matches the 5-year mean I posted (and the individual year graph I linked to), with the advantage of showing the corresponding el nino and la nina effects. With the strongest el nino of the century, 1998 in this set of surface temperatures was nevertheless beaten by 2005, 2007 and 2010 with much more modest el ninos, and the 1999/2000 low has been beaten by subsequent la nina years also - yet you assert that "there has been no warming for fifteen years."

And Hansen did not say there's been no warming for ten years, except to those who think context is irrelevant:
"Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. . . . The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade..."

You are free to fixate solely on surface temperature data, ignore the atmosphere and oceans, take scientists' quotes out of context pretending that they agree with you - and then add another five or six years on top of that, directly in the face of all the facts! Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously :lol:
View attachment 67155164


##########################
##########################



That is almost exactly the opposite of what I posted, which pretty much sums up the level of conversation going on here I suppose.

You can dogmatically assert that climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables, if you like.

I reckon that if we can learn as much as we have about things like the human body and brain - which are significantly more complex than climate systems, albeit easier to study and with many more decades of research already done - it probably won't be too long before we've got all the important factors of climate science sorted out. The fact that observations so far have been mostly within the lower uncertainty ranges of previous projections suggests that they've made considerable progress, but aren't quite there yet.

But not knowing everything does not mean they know nothing :doh

Your denial is noted. Thank you.:mrgreen:

 

[code1211]

That is almost exactly the opposite of what I posted, which pretty much sums up the level of conversation going on here I suppose.

You can dogmatically assert that climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables, if you like.

I reckon that if we can learn as much as we have about things like the human body and brain - which are significantly more complex than climate systems, albeit easier to study and with many more decades of research already done - it probably won't be too long before we've got all the important factors of climate science sorted out. The fact that observations so far have been mostly within the lower uncertainty ranges of previous projections suggests that they've made considerable progress, but aren't quite there yet.

But not knowing everything does not mean they know nothing :doh

You didn't say that the climate scientists are incapable of accounting for all of the variables? your words:

"You could of course show me where these best and brightest of AGW climatologists have ever claimed to be capable of "accounting for all of the natural variability"...? Obviously they would have been wrong if any of 'em did claim that. But at least in that case your argument would not be a complete strawman, though it still would not show that climate systems and trends are as incomprehensible as you seem to imply."

As always with your circuitous route between the capital letter and the period, it's hard to follow, but that is exactly what you said.

I only agreed with a rare, lucid comment in one of your posts.

 

[code1211]

Your denial is noted. Thank you.:mrgreen:

I do enjoy that he holds up Hansen as the best and the brightest as if Hansen is not one the leading Die Hards.

Shown below is still another of his predictions that is being exposed as wrong and based on AGW Science. Is "wrong and based on AGW Science" a redundancy?

NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance' - USATODAY.com
<snip>
Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
<snip>

Please note that 5 years is now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh. You mean that solar output is quite low by historical standards right now? That might play a role of why we aren't seeing continued record years for temperature. But it's a minimal variable- even with low solar output, we still are in the hottest decade ever recorded.

Yes, but why?

There are several other possibilities outside of greenhouse gasses. If greenhouse gasses were the primary effect, then we wouldn't have this pause without other factors taking a very serious dive... In unison... for more than a decade... Right?

 

[Mithrae]

You didn't say that the climate scientists are incapable of accounting for all of the variables? your words:

"You could of course show me where these best and brightest of AGW climatologists have ever claimed to be capable of "accounting for all of the natural variability"...? Obviously they would have been wrong if any of 'em did claim that. But at least in that case your argument would not be a complete strawman, though it still would not show that climate systems and trends are as incomprehensible as you seem to imply."

As always with your circuitous route between the capital letter and the period, it's hard to follow, but that is exactly what you said.

I only agreed with a rare, lucid comment in one of your posts.

I notice that you have not even attempted to show me where these best and brightest of AGW climatologists have ever claimed to be capable of "accounting for all of the natural variability." So at best, you are highlighting your own strawman here.

There are many things which climatologists do understand, there are some things which have not yet been conclusively established, and there are some specific variables which can't be precisely predicted in advance. However as you've quoted, I implicitly disagreed with your claim that climate systems and trends are incomprehensible. Your words:
"Both Jack and I... assert in full throated harmony that the Climate system is too complex to understand..."

I stress that I still know very little on the subject - and from what I've seen most folk around here are not a great deal more educated than I - but my view is that climatologists probably already understand most of the important factors in play, and if there are still any major gaps in our knowledge (it seems probable that at least one factor had not yet been widely recognised as of AR4, 2007) they're likely to be filled in before too long.

From this you get "We seem to be in agreement that the climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables"?


No. Or at least, only if you would also say that doctors "have absolutely no chance of accounting for all the variables" regarding individual and social health... and from that conclude only "that they have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables." Such hyper-scepticism, such black and white thinking seems pretty absurd in that example, does it not?

Why do the absolutist terms "absolutely no chance... all" spring so eagerly to your fingertips, when the more nuanced terms "good chance... most" are so much more informative and useful?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, but why?

There are several other possibilities outside of greenhouse gasses. If greenhouse gasses were the primary effect, then we wouldn't have this pause without other factors taking a very serious dive... In unison... for more than a decade... Right?

That would be true if the temperature was back down to averages.

But given the surface temperature remains at record highs, its not real surprising that you have variability in the data in the short term. Again, if you look at the five year moving average, which is a much better way to look at things (like the stock market - moving averages smooth the lines and better delineate trends), you can see its moving up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That would be true if the temperature was back down to averages.

But given the surface temperature remains at record highs, its not real surprising that you have variability in the data in the short term. Again, if you look at the five year moving average, which is a much better way to look at things (like the stock market - moving averages smooth the lines and better delineate trends), you can see its moving up.

LOL...

Over your head I see...

You fail to consider all the past points brought up that may have relevance. You dismiss them because the alarmists say they don't matter...

You can stay in your single bit binary world. Yes/no.... nothing in between... It is AGW or is isn't...

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL...

Over your head I see...

You fail to consider all the past points brought up that may have relevance. You dismiss them because the alarmists say they don't matter...

You can stay in your single bit binary world. Yes/no.... nothing in between... It is AGW or is isn't...

No. It's complex, but I'm just pointing out that AGW is real and responsible for a good bit of the warming we are seeing.

 

[Jack Hays]

No. It's complex, but I'm just pointing out that AGW is real and responsible for a good bit of the warming we are seeing.

So you say . . . and say . . . and say.:lamo

 

[code1211]

I notice that you have not even attempted to show me where these best and brightest of AGW climatologists have ever claimed to be capable of "accounting for all of the natural variability." So at best, you are highlighting your own strawman here.

There are many things which climatologists do understand, there are some things which have not yet been conclusively established, and there are some specific variables which can't be precisely predicted in advance. However as you've quoted, I implicitly disagreed with your claim that climate systems and trends are incomprehensible. Your words:
"Both Jack and I... assert in full throated harmony that the Climate system is too complex to understand..."

I stress that I still know very little on the subject - and from what I've seen most folk around here are not a great deal more educated than I - but my view is that climatologists probably already understand most of the important factors in play, and if there are still any major gaps in our knowledge (it seems probable that at least one factor had not yet been widely recognised as of AR4, 2007) they're likely to be filled in before too long.

From this you get "We seem to be in agreement that the climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables"?


No. Or at least, only if you would also say that doctors "have absolutely no chance of accounting for all the variables" regarding individual and social health... and from that conclude only "that they have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables." Such hyper-scepticism, such black and white thinking seems pretty absurd in that example, does it not?

Why do the absolutist terms "absolutely no chance... all" spring so eagerly to your fingertips, when the more nuanced terms "good chance... most" are so much more informative and useful?

We agree that there are a group of people who are very committed to understanding the climate and to predicting the course of the climate and attaching causes to the effects that are happening everyday.

Is this true?

We both agree that there are several variables that all interact with each other. This table

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

shows 50 discreet climate variables. The impacts of all of these occur individually and in concert. I think the number of interactions in this kind of a system is figured at 50 factorial, but I could be wrong. Anybody know the answer?

The simple fact of the matter is that the predictions based on AGW Science are wrong consistently and consistently wrong on the "too much warming predicted" side of things. Their assumptions are one by one proven to be wrong and proven to be wrong with a bias toward pointing to too much warming. We can assume one of a coupe things from this: there is huge conspiracy in which all of the scintists in the infant dscipline are crooked or that they do not posess the combination of knowledge and experience to accurately do the job they are charged with completing.

Recently the Argo Array of buoys showed that the ocean warming they were claiming with certainty was occurring was not occurring. There is also the problem that heat is being shed from the ecosystem into space in defiance of their models both earlier and faster.

So what is your feeling on this? Are the scientists outlandishly stupid, outlandishly corrupt or just unable to account for the interaction of all of the variables and not in command of exactly how the variables act individually or as a group?

 

[code1211]

Oh. Then you'll like this.

Climate science: Stubborn things | The Economist

In the article:



However, I dont expect this will change anything. Its tough to get a clown to get serious.

Any ocean temperature data before the Argo Array of Buoys is just one vey narrow notch up from pure conjecture.

 

[code1211]

I notice that you have not even attempted to show me where these best and brightest of AGW climatologists have ever claimed to be capable of "accounting for all of the natural variability." So at best, you are highlighting your own strawman here.

There are many things which climatologists do understand, there are some things which have not yet been conclusively established, and there are some specific variables which can't be precisely predicted in advance. However as you've quoted, I implicitly disagreed with your claim that climate systems and trends are incomprehensible. Your words:
"Both Jack and I... assert in full throated harmony that the Climate system is too complex to understand..."

I stress that I still know very little on the subject - and from what I've seen most folk around here are not a great deal more educated than I - but my view is that climatologists probably already understand most of the important factors in play, and if there are still any major gaps in our knowledge (it seems probable that at least one factor had not yet been widely recognised as of AR4, 2007) they're likely to be filled in before too long.

From this you get "We seem to be in agreement that the climatologists have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables"?


No. Or at least, only if you would also say that doctors "have absolutely no chance of accounting for all the variables" regarding individual and social health... and from that conclude only "that they have absolutely no chance of accounting for all of the variables." Such hyper-scepticism, such black and white thinking seems pretty absurd in that example, does it not?

Why do the absolutist terms "absolutely no chance... all" spring so eagerly to your fingertips, when the more nuanced terms "good chance... most" are so much more informative and useful?

By the way, comparing real science to AGW Science is like comparing real science to Astrology or Phrenology.

 

[flogger]

Any ocean temperature data before the Argo Array of Buoys is just one vey narrow notch up from pure conjecture.

That statement could easily be made for the whole AGW premise in my view !

 

[code1211]

No. It's complex, but I'm just pointing out that AGW is real and responsible for a good bit of the warming we are seeing.

What caused warming before there were Anthropogenic forcings?

 

[Threegoofs]

Any ocean temperature data before the Argo Array of Buoys is just one vey narrow notch up from pure conjecture.

And you know this because of your extensive background in oceanography?

Because of your deep reviews of the published literature in the field?

Because of your well known work in designing these systems?

Or....

because you read it on a denier blog?

I think we all know the answer.

 

[code1211]

That statement could easily be made for the whole AGW premise in my view !

Probably true. There have been no shortage of temperature swings varying widely and dramatically over time.

 

[code1211]

And you know this because of your extensive background in oceanography?

Because of your deep reviews of the published literature in the field?

Because of your well known work in designing these systems?

Or....

because you read it on a denier blog?

I think we all know the answer.

Every time you talk about ocean temperature you are shown to be out of your depth.

What is the methodology you claim supports your record of accuracy.

I say there is none and I cannot prove a negative.

What is your proof of a consistent methodology driven measurement of the ocean's temperatures.

Please recall that when the Argo Array was deployed the "experts' were gobstruck that they were, wait for it, wrong again.

 

[Threegoofs]

Every time you talk about ocean temperature you are shown to out of your depth.

What is the methodology you claim supports your record of accuracy.

I say there is none and I cannot prove a negative.

What is your proof of a consistent methodology driven measurement of the ocean's temperatures.

Please recall that when the Argo Array was deployed the "experts' were gobstruck that they were, wait for it, wrong again.

I'm not talking about ocean temperature.

I'm talking about a guy who blithely dismisses a large project run by ocean scientists at UCSD, consisting of over 3000 floats monitoring temperatures worldwide and run at a cost of $24MM per year, and probably much more given the staff that is required to run it. The guys who look at the data are PhDs who do this stuff for a living, and a couple dozen countries recognize the importance of the research and actively contribute toward it.

You categorize the data as "a notch up from pure conjecture".

So I'm not arguing the science. Not with someone who is so unfamiliar with the background of science to dismiss entire data collection projects on the basis of a blog article from a weatherman and some other non-scientists.

 

[flogger]

And you know this because of your extensive background in oceanography?

Because of your deep reviews of the published literature in the field?

Because of your well known work in designing these systems?

Or....

because you read it on a denier blog?

I think we all know the answer.

So simply prove him wrong then given your 'greater knowlege' on the subject ? Where is your data ?

 

[Goshin]

Any way you slice it, the data and conclusions are all over the place and far too inconclusive for the kind of economy-wrecking changes the more extreme Warmers have been proposing.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm not talking about ocean temperature.

I'm talking about a guy who blithely dismisses a large project run by ocean scientists at UCSD, consisting of over 3000 floats monitoring temperatures worldwide and run at a cost of $24MM per year, and probably much more given the staff that is required to run it. The guys who look at the data are PhDs who do this stuff for a living, and a couple dozen countries recognize the importance of the research and actively contribute toward it.

You categorize the data as "a notch up from pure conjecture".

So I'm not arguing the science. Not with someone who is so unfamiliar with the background of science to dismiss entire data collection projects on the basis of a blog article from a weatherman and some other non-scientists.

And all we have is your unsupported claim above, accompanied by snide commentary about others' citations and links. Well here's some news: you can't beat something with nothing. Your posts add up to nothing because they're entirely unlinked and unsupported. You're just not good enough.eace

 

[code1211]

I'm not talking about ocean temperature.

I'm talking about a guy who blithely dismisses a large project run by ocean scientists at UCSD, consisting of over 3000 floats monitoring temperatures worldwide and run at a cost of $24MM per year, and probably much more given the staff that is required to run it. The guys who look at the data are PhDs who do this stuff for a living, and a couple dozen countries recognize the importance of the research and actively contribute toward it.

You categorize the data as "a notch up from pure conjecture".

So I'm not arguing the science. Not with someone who is so unfamiliar with the background of science to dismiss entire data collection projects on the basis of a blog article from a weatherman and some other non-scientists.

You just described the Argo array of buoys.

What is the methodology that you say existed before the Argo Array of buoys.

 

[ethanUNC]

So simply prove him wrong then given your 'greater knowlege' on the subject ? Where is your data ?

No data would be good enough. You would always find a blog from Rush Limbaugh or someone else who disagrees and use it as a "refutation." See my signature.

 

[Jack Hays]

No data would be good enough. You would always find a blog from Rush Limbaugh or someone else who disagrees and use it as a "refutation." See my signature.

Bluff called. Folds.:lamo