At the end of the 20th century, when the warmies (not the scientists, just their groupies, note) were blaming all the warming on man-made CO2 the sceptics were not convinced that was a true picture. It has taken "the pause" to convince people like you that there are other things influencing the warming as well, for instance, the various ocean oscillations.
The oscillations do not supply energy but they can suppress and enhance the warming at different times. This strongly suggests that the warming we had in the past was also influenced by the ocean. The inescapable consequence its that the claimed warming by greenhouse gases has been overstated.
I think we have now had over 30 excuses from scientists about why there is now a pause. This means that over 30 factors that should be in the models are not. It means that all previous warming should be re-assessed in the light of these newly discovered factors. One of these factors is that reduced solar activity can cause reduced warming. Can anyone not see the obvious corollary? If it is true, how could increased solar activity not cause increased warming?
Until science can name all the various components of warming and then attribute the correct amount of warming to each one then I will continue to maintain that they are largely guessing.
Have a current list of excuses (39 and counting) and tell me how much warming is contributed by each one.
I don't think so. The 'pause' only relates to one part of the global system. It doesn't apply to the oceans which store a huge amount of energy. How can you detach one set of measurements from the wider set and then use that to argue your case?
The pause is only a pause until it isn't. So all the debate is premature about what it means for AGW. It's sort of like arguing that Mt. Everest can't exist because the ground on the ascent sometimes goes flat.
"Denialists want to think that climate is only effected by a single factor. "It's just the Sun." "It's just PDO." Because, if both the Sun and PDO can effect climate, so can carbon dioxide."
Well, CR, it look like you are finally coming around and thinking like a scientist. We skeptics have been saying this all along! Yes, CO2 can be a factor, but it very doubtful it is the primary factor related to warming. You warmist have been saying it is; using the diplomacy of the IPCC, the UN, a fabricated 97%, as your crutch. Our planets climate system is a highly complex output of dozens of factors and their hundreds of interactions.
Your assuming that when the PDO goes positive temperatures will rise again, how is it when some one spots what could be a start of a trend they assume it will continue, my prediction is before the PDO turns positive we will have some cooling, I don't beieve CO2 and the PDO are the only factors involved, you have forgotten solar cycles.
I am willing to admit CO2 may have caused some part of the 0.8C rise in the last 150yrs, and might cause another 0.6C rise in the next 150yrs, if so yes I welcome it.
Apparently you don't get it. The greenies are trying to tax and control CO2, because it seemingly is the cause of higher temperatures.However, the CO2 level is going up and the temperature is going down. It is apparent that you don't understand the basic principles of science. You really don't get it, do you?
There's camel fossils and petrified wood from a rain forest on Victoria island in Canada's arctic.
Update : Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
Also God promised Noah that he would not flood the world again
it was 40 degrees in Midwest in July
" How is global warming over if the pattern is: the temperature goes up, pauses, goes up, pauses, goes up..."
What you have described here is the temperature from the end of the LIA or about the past 150 years. I do agree that it seems the PDO has simply been a modulation over the apparent constant warming during over that time. But there are obviously longer term natural variations that are also modulating the temperature. These probably work more slowly so it's very difficult to get those signals out of the noisy temperature data over much longer periods of time.
The question I have is if CO2 somehow remained constant, what would the natural variations be for the next hundred years? Because you would need to know that if you want to superimpose increased warming due to increased CO2 to make any sort of worthwhile prediction of future temperatures. It seems to me that current climate models assume a fairly flat natural response with CO2 doing all future warming.
The consensus of solar physicists seems to be that the Sun is going quiet for the next several solar cycles which implies a cooling effect. I seriously worry that this effect might be greater than CO2 warming which would cause quite a hardship. For all we know, we might want CO2 warming.
The only thing deniers of science ever get (and most here do so very slowly) is how to recycle anti-science deceptions less stupidly.
Tall white men are the superior master race. They will survive the apocalypse.
This is a recent question with chosen best answer, and a follow-up comment by someone who actually read what the question and answer say:
"How long does the earths climate have to plateau before we decide global warming is over?
Global temperatures have plateaued for the last 18 years, and current predictions show that temps will continue to remain the same or even decline in the future. How long do temperatures have to plateau or decline before the science determines that they were wrong about so-called "global warming"?
Best AnswerAsker's Choice
Good point, Xxxx. The money will keep flowing as long as this is a dire emergency.
But to address the question, this plateau will last 30 years, and then moderate warming will resume. This is the pattern of the entire 20th century- 30 years of warming, 30 years of pause. It's the PDO.
Asker's rating ... 5 out of 5
1 comment, xxxxx 1 day:
That's what I don't get. If it was the PDO, wouldn't the warming and cooling be equal? Why is there more warming than cooling? (My open question)"
*******************
That's a very good question. How is global warming over if the pattern is: the temperature goes up, pauses, goes up, pauses, goes up... Hmm? What am I missing here?
A complete PDO cycle would result in no net change in global average temperature, other things being equal.
Denialists want to think that climate is only effected by a single factor. "It's just the Sun." "It's just PDO." Because, if both the Sun and PDO can effect climate, so can carbon dioxide.
PDO is difficult to predict, but the period seems to be getting longer.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-p...
i see a flaw in the answer that says he agrees that c02 causes some warming , well you just agreed you can not now logically deny
if you mean by "getting it", admitting that it's fake?, probably not, too much of their insanity wrapped up in it
