NASA Study confirms that there was no "pause" in the warming

[code1211]

One might wonder as to whether the anti-AGW people who post on the internets are getting paid for their words but we all 'know' it's the loony warmist types known as climatologists who are really raking in the dollars/euros - right?

For some reason those 'rational' ones who denigrate the science fail to note the cash being spent on the propaganda machinery by fossil fuel industries - well some of them still pay out, others have quit

What was the amount of the funding and what were the actions supported by the funding?

 

[code1211]

Satellites are capable of detecting heat at different depths as far as I know.

Interesting.

Do you have the data that supports this assertion?

 

[code1211]

I'm sure that is an example of good journalism when discussing a topic that is complex and lacks complete clarity. They tend to avoid dogmatic statements unless absolutely certain, so pointing out less than dogmatic language in an journalist's article which attempts to explain and discuss the conclusions of numerous experts is not really a very strong critique.

The part posted is absolute mush. It says nothing.

 

[code1211]

You should work on your analogy. As it stands, it is pretty confusing and ****ty.

Some are more easily confused than others.

What part is tripping you up?

 

[Somerville]

What was the amount of the funding and what were the actions supported by the funding?

It's known as "dark money" for a reason

. . . while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
<snip>
Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.

- See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.iy4ne9lw.dpuf

 

[MrT]

Some are more easily confused than others.

What part is tripping you up?

"If there were aliens guiding the activities and planning of the Egyptians, then isn't it more a plausible explanation for why the Pyramids have Pi included in every measurement than to believe that this stone age culture had actually discovered Pi?"

Why don't you go ahead and elaborate on why this is a proper analogy to my argument wherein I relied on a peer-reviewed study published by the Jet Propulsion Lab at NASA which used 20 years of observational data to track an increase in thermal energy in the deeper ocean consistent with the "missing" heat energy that certain models predicted would have further increased the surface temperatures over the last 18 years.

 

[LowDown]

There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.

Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.

That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science.

Link to the Journal Article: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Link to Article Discussion: The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

More, and more, evidence each and every day. Please feel free to use this data and smack down any more individuals who claim that there hasn't been any warming for the past 17 years.

By my count that's the 71st independent explanation published in the peer reviewed climate literature for the halt in global warming. So, which of the 71 explanations is true?

If the halt in global warming was due to cooler Pacific waters wouldn't the Pacific waters have to be, you know, cooler?

By the way, when the usual suspects say that the halt "nerve actually occurred" I assume they mean figuratively, that is to say that the heat was still increasing even if temperatures were not rising, because it's undeniable that there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 18+ years.

 

[longview]

By my count that's the 71st independent explanation published in the peer reviewed climate literature for the halt in global warming. So, which of the 71 explanations is true?

If the halt in global warming was due to cooler Pacific waters wouldn't the Pacific waters have to be, you know, cooler?

By the way, when the usual suspects say that the halt "nerve actually occurred" I assume they mean figuratively, that is to say that the heat was still increasing even if temperatures were not rising, because it's undeniable that there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 18+ years.

I was looking at the GISS global data this morning, and was surprised to see the 2014 J-D number
is now 14.75 C, when back in March in was 14.68 C.
I realize that .07 C does not sound like much, but it represents almost 8% of the total observed
warming since 1880, appearing on demand since March, in the same data set!

 

[MrT]

By my count that's the 71st independent explanation published in the peer reviewed climate literature for the halt in global warming. So, which of the 71 explanations is true?

If the halt in global warming was due to cooler Pacific waters wouldn't the Pacific waters have to be, you know, cooler?

By the way, when the usual suspects say that the halt "nerve actually occurred" I assume they mean figuratively, that is to say that the heat was still increasing even if temperatures were not rising, because it's undeniable that there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 18+ years.

Take your criticism up with the Jet Propulsion Lab at NASA. I am sure they will appreciate the educational lesson.

 

[Poor Debater]

"If there were aliens guiding the activities and planning of the Egyptians, then isn't it more a plausible explanation for why the Pyramids have Pi included in every measurement than to believe that this stone age culture had actually discovered Pi?"

Why don't you go ahead and elaborate on why this is a proper analogy to my argument wherein I relied on a peer-reviewed study published by the Jet Propulsion Lab at NASA which used 20 years of observational data to track an increase in thermal energy in the deeper ocean consistent with the "missing" heat energy that certain models predicted would have further increased the surface temperatures over the last 18 years.

If space aliens built the pyramids, don't you think they would have a better value for pi than 22/7, which is what the Egyptians used?

 

[Poor Debater]

By my count that's the 71st independent explanation published in the peer reviewed climate literature for the halt in global warming.

That rather clearly demonstrates that complaints by the denialati (including you) that alternative hypotheses never get published in climatology, is nothing but a load of crapola, created for political purposes and swallowed by the rubes who don't actually read scientific journals.

So, which of the 71 explanations is true?

It could be all of them, or any subset thereof.

If the halt in global warming was due to cooler Pacific waters wouldn't the Pacific waters have to be, you know, cooler?

In the first place, there was no halt in global warming; you've been misinformed. In the second place, apparently you don't read the stuff you post, because it's explained right there.

By the way, when the usual suspects say that the halt "nerve actually occurred" I assume they mean figuratively, that is to say that the heat was still increasing even if temperatures were not rising, because it's undeniable that there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 18+ years.

No, what we mean is that there has been no statistically significant change in trend during whatever recent period you're currently claiming is the hiatus, compared to the trend in the 30+ years before that time. In other words, you're using the wrong prior.

 

[Poor Debater]

I was looking at the GISS global data this morning, and was surprised to see the 2014 J-D number
is now 14.75 C, when back in March in was 14.68 C.
I realize that .07 C does not sound like much, but it represents almost 8% of the total observed
warming since 1880, appearing on demand since March, in the same data set!

Between June and July of this year, GISS switched ocean datasets from ERSST v. 3b to ERSST v.4.

 

[longview]

Between June and July of this year, GISS switched ocean datasets from ERSST v. 3b to ERSST v.4.

Thanks, I was wondering where the large jump came from.
I wonder if they count it for the total warming, or does it just count as a artifact of the switch?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

By my count that's the 71st independent explanation published in the peer reviewed climate literature for the halt in global warming. So, which of the 71 explanations is true?

If the halt in global warming was due to cooler Pacific waters wouldn't the Pacific waters have to be, you know, cooler?

By the way, when the usual suspects say that the halt "nerve actually occurred" I assume they mean figuratively, that is to say that the heat was still increasing even if temperatures were not rising, because it's undeniable that there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 18+ years.

If it was 107* at your house on May 15, and the hottest day in June was 93*, would you conclude July must have temps around 80* ?

 

[Poor Debater]

Thanks, I was wondering where the large jump came from.
I wonder if they count it for the total warming, or does it just count as a artifact of the switch?

The most correct way to determine how much warming has occurred is to smooth the data, so you don't get fooled by statistical outliers or statistical noise. By that measure, the switch is insignificant over the long term.

 

[longview]

The most correct way to determine how much warming has occurred is to smooth the data, so you don't get fooled by statistical outliers or statistical noise. By that measure, the switch is insignificant over the long term.

The switch added the height of the error bar (.05C) to the signal.
So the 1880 to 2014 Delta used to be .89 C, now is .94 C.

 

[LowDown]

Take your criticism up with the Jet Propulsion Lab at NASA. I am sure they will appreciate the educational lesson.

Hey, I've always said that going with the mainstream experts is perfectly reasonable if you don't understand and can't evaluate the science for yourself. Those of us who do understand it, on the other hand, are cursed with being able to see the flaws.

 

[Verax]

Hey, I've always said that going with the mainstream experts is perfectly reasonable if you don't understand and can't evaluate the science for yourself. Those of us who do understand it, on the other hand, are cursed with being able to see the flaws.

If you know more than actual climate scientists why don't you write papers and correct them? I'm sure the fossil fuel industry would be glad to pay you millions to disprove mainstream climate science.

 

[LowDown]

That rather clearly demonstrates that complaints by the denialati (including you) that alternative hypotheses never get published in climatology, is nothing but a load of crapola, created for political purposes and swallowed by the rubes who don't actually read scientific journals.

No, all 71 of the explanations are firmly within the aegis of AGW theory. A proliferation of theories indicates that none of them are much good. I suspect that since they won't step outside of the AGW box they will never be able to explain the halt in warming.

In the first place, there was no halt in global warming; you've been misinformed. In the second place, apparently you don't read the stuff you post, because it's explained right there.

Sorry, but that there has been a halt in global warming is confirmed by numerous peer reviewed climate publications. Even the paper in question in this thread acknowledges it. The whole point of the paper was to try to explain it.

No, what we mean is that there has been no statistically significant change in trend during whatever recent period you're currently claiming is the hiatus, compared to the trend in the 30+ years before that time. In other words, you're using the wrong prior.

Using the right prior global warming disappears entirely. Climate scientists have been cherry picking the data the whole time. They focus on the 1975 to 1998 period to argue for a high climate sensitivity (and adjust their models to fit that). It might interest you to find out how they explain the 30 years before that (1940 - 1975) when temperatures were falling slightly and the 30 years even before that (1910 - 1940) when they were rising faster even than during 1975 to 1998 in spite of a much smaller change in atmospheric CO2.

The other interesting aspect of the paper is the way it trashes climate models and argues that using real world data is the way to go. What they have done is show how the ENSO affects the climate, but they barely even mention the ENSO. If the ENSO can make global temperatures go down it can make them go up, which makes CO2 less important as a driver of global temps. Trenberth fell in the same trap, arguing that the halt in warming was due to natural climate variability. But if natural variability can make temperatures lower it can make them hotter, and, again, CO2 is less important.

 

[LowDown]

If you know more than actual climate scientists why don't you write papers and correct them? I'm sure the fossil fuel industry would be glad to pay you millions to disprove mainstream climate science.

No, those guys don't respond well to criticism. If you want to talk about the science then talk about the science. Don't always be hiding behind "experts".

 

[Verax]

No, those guys don't respond well to criticism. If you want to talk about the science then talk about the science. Don't always be hiding behind "experts".

So instead of making millions of dollars and being in the scientific history books as one of the guys that was right when everybody else was wrong you instead don't do it because "they don't respond well to criticism"? Gimme a break.

Sorry but I have no reason to believe you or any of the other deniers on this forum have any more than a crude understanding of basic climate science and I've seen you all be extremely wrong about simple subjects many times. You might trick a few of the more ignorant people but it's pretty obvious to most what you guys do. You're not experts and you never will be.

 

[Jack Hays]

Global Temperature Update
[h=1]Both NOAA and GISS Have Switched to NOAA’s Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data for Their Global Temperature Products[/h] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale This is the June 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update, but in it we’re presenting the new GISS and NCEI surface temperature products…and the UAH lower troposphere temperature data version 6. This post provides an update of the products of the three primary…

 

[Poor Debater]

No, all 71 of the explanations are firmly within the aegis of AGW theory.

Oh, I get it. You've been led to believe that somewhere there is some theory that is not in the mainstream, and that isn't being published for purely political reasons. So then, what is this magic theory that your entire point depends upon? Who wrote it? Who rejected it unfairly, and when?

Or is this just yet another load of crapola from Denierstan that has not one shred of actual evidence behind it?

Maybe you should consider camping out in the conspiracy theory section, where lack of evidence is not a hindrance for the tin-foil hat crowd.

Sorry, but that there has been a halt in global warming is confirmed by numerous peer reviewed climate publications.

In that case you will have no trouble citing two such studies that claim that said "halt" actually exists, and is statistically significant. Either that, or withdraw your obviously false statement.

Even the paper in question in this thread acknowledges it. The whole point of the paper was to try to explain it.

No it doesn't. It says the trend apparently changed, but it does not say that the apparent change is, or ever was, statistically significant. It doesn't say that because it's not true.

Using the right prior global warming disappears entirely. Climate scientists have been cherry picking the data the whole time. They focus on the 1975 to 1998 period to argue for a high climate sensitivity (and adjust their models to fit that).

Utterly untrue, Climate sensitivity is an output result of climate models, not an input parameter.

It might interest you to find out how they explain the 30 years before that (1940 - 1975) when temperatures were falling slightly and the 30 years even before that (1910 - 1940) when they were rising faster even than during 1975 to 1998 in spite of a much smaller change in atmospheric CO2.

That's already known, and has been known for decades.

The other interesting aspect of the paper is the way it trashes climate models and argues that using real world data is the way to go. What they have done is show how the ENSO affects the climate, but they barely even mention the ENSO. If the ENSO can make global temperatures go down it can make them go up, which makes CO2 less important as a driver of global temps.

Once again displaying no knowledge of how the climate system actually works. The overall ENSO trend is zero, and in fact that trend must be zero. Thus ENSO changes the weather from year to year, but not the climate from tridecade to tridecade.

Trenberth fell in the same trap, arguing that the halt in warming was due to natural climate variability. But if natural variability can make temperatures lower it can make them hotter, and, again, CO2 is less important.

And once again you fall into the same trap: natural variability has no long-term trend, and therefore cannot cause long-term warming.

Fail.

 

[longview]

Global Temperature Update
[h=1]Both NOAA and GISS Have Switched to NOAA’s Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data for Their Global Temperature Products[/h] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale This is the June 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update, but in it we’re presenting the new GISS and NCEI surface temperature products…and the UAH lower troposphere temperature data version 6. This post provides an update of the products of the three primary…

Thanks for posting, I noticed the GISS increased quite a bit over their March data.

 

[LowDown]

So instead of making millions of dollars and being in the scientific history books as one of the guys that was right when everybody else was wrong you instead don't do it because "they don't respond well to criticism"? Gimme a break.

Sorry but I have no reason to believe you or any of the other deniers on this forum have any more than a crude understanding of basic climate science and I've seen you all be extremely wrong about simple subjects many times. You might trick a few of the more ignorant people but it's pretty obvious to most what you guys do. You're not experts and you never will be.

If you don't understand the science you can't appreciate who does.