• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Great Pause Gets Longer

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,343
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Waiting for warming is getting be like waiting for Godot. It/he just never seems to get here.

Hiatus in Global Warming
The Great Pause lengthens again

Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 3 months By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS [1] temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 2 months to 18 years 3 months. Figure 1.…

". . . . A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS [1] and UAH [2] monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or a little below half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).


The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though approaching 70 mutually incompatible and more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals and among proselytizing scientists, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed, and is demonstrated in a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.


Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
+++
 
Oh look it's the Monckton methodology.
 
The ten hottest years on record with one exception have all occurred in this Century. 1998 is the only exception.
How about that.
 
The ten hottest years on record with one exception have all occurred in this Century. 1998 is the only exception.
How about that.
We are on a temperature plateau, the warmest is expected, what is not expected is the lack of warming.
Another question is if the year was the hottest, averaged, did the daytime highs increase, or the nighttime lows not go as low?
The reason I ask is that both can affect the average, but CO2 is most likely to affect the nighttime lows.
 
Courtesy of Principia Scientific International January, 2014: BREAKING: NEW CLIMATE DATA RIGGING SCANDAL ROCKS US GOVERNMENT

{excerpted}


More to follow...
 
Continued from the Principia Scientific article I previously posted...

GHCN Global Gridded Data

"But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact, " says Goddard. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.

Blue line is thermometer data. Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is V2 adjusted. They created more than 1 degree warming by reversing polarity of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. This created a double downwards adjustment for the pre-1998 years, relative to the post 1998 years.

NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA US temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift:



...<snip>...

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif (650×502)

But in USHCN2, the adjustments are much larger, and downwards. The USHCN2 adjustments are supposed to be approximately the same adjustments as USHCN1.

Here is an animation of the complete set of USHCN adjustments, which turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend:


 
I'll be back later to stir up more! :2razz:
 

Since when was 119 months equal to 18 years? It's less than 10 by my calculations - and that's an average of tropospheric temperature records, not actual surface temperatures.

Subtleties perhaps lost on the aristocrat you are depending upon for your scientific education :lol:
 
Ad hominem is the last refuge of the bankrupt.

Uh, no, that's not ad hominem. Said methodology is flawed. Surely you knew this already, being as well-informed on the subject as you are.
 
The ten hottest years on record with one exception have all occurred in this Century. 1998 is the only exception.
How about that.

" The record' is a warmist technique to obfuscate. " We have no statistically significant reliable temperature data. ~ hundred years is nothing, and beyond that we only proxies-aka educated guesses.

That said - a pause and ten hottest years "on record" are not mutually exclusive at all.
 

This particular graphic addresses a different point. If you read the article you would have seen that.
 
Uh, no, that's not ad hominem. Said methodology is flawed. Surely you knew this already, being as well-informed on the subject as you are.

Monckton is only a publicizer. The methodology in this case is no more his than Darwin's methodology was Huxley's.
 
Monckton is only a publicizer. The methodology in this case is no more his than Darwin's methodology was Huxley's.

Actually, no, he did invent a graph much like the one you posted, and then fraudulently attributed it to the IPCC when he was speaking before Congress.
 
And now a little reality.....and it is not so rosy.




2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record Globally By Far | ThinkProgress
 
Last edited:
Actually, no, he did invent a graph much like the one you posted, and then fraudulently attributed it to the IPCC when he was speaking before Congress.

An accusation like that needs a link.
 
Also shows the Pause.

If 2015 was a "pause" I hate to see what happens when it gets going again. We are taking in more heat that we lose every year and it is going somewhere. The permafrost is melting for instance.
 
If 2015 was a "pause" I hate to see what happens when it gets going again. We are taking in more heat that we lose every year and it is going somewhere. The permafrost is melting for instance.
If we look at the actual GISS data, The J-D column.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
We see that the greatest year to year change was in 1977, at +.27 C.
Since 1998, the largest increase has been +.14 C in 2005, along with a -.14 C in 2008.
If 2014 turns out to be a record year, at say 14.67 C, the increase,
would be ...+.08 C, a whole .01 C above the earlier record of 14.66 C in 2010.
All the big swings in temperature were in the last century,
This century has mostly been single single digit hundredths of a degree C.
 
An accusation like that needs a link.

It shouldn't be hard to spot the issue:

Look at the temperature rise projection on that chart. Oddly linear, yes?
 
If 2015 was a "pause" I hate to see what happens when it gets going again. We are taking in more heat that we lose every year and it is going somewhere. The permafrost is melting for instance.

I assume you meant 2014, and there's no evidence in the data to support your claims.
 
It shouldn't be hard to spot the issue:

Look at the temperature rise projection on that chart. Oddly linear, yes?

Since it's an IPCC projection you'll have to take it up with them.
 
Since it's an IPCC projection you'll have to take it up with them.

That's the error you've made time and time again.

Somebody told you that was an IPCC projection, and you believed them. Because when it fits your preconceptions, you never question the accuracy of the claim. You never bother to check whether someone is accurately portraying the IPCC's work.

Have you ever seen an IPCC projection that was a straight line? The models look like spaghetti, dude. Look at what you posted. A straight-line temperature increase? Really? You believed the IPCC made that projection? A slow, steady, exactly .16C/decade increase for an entire century? Can you show me where they made this projection that you claim they made?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…