Where I live it's about 20 degrees cooler this week than it was two weeks ago, I'm pretty sure this pause in warming indicates that summer is not coming this year.
Answering Elizabeth based on my research, going by correlations in solar cycles and TSI values I predict that the next decade or two will be cooler after that I don't know, because little is known about long term solar cycles.
I do not deny that CO2 might cause some warming, but do not consider that as bad,
If temperature turns around and start rising as predicted by models in spite of a solar decrease, yes I would start to consider AGW as the cause.
However I would require a reasonable explanation of why there was a pause and why a linear rise did not occur.
The reference to any pause in GW is just DA denier BS
I don't know how these simpletons can say there is a pause when 2012 was the 10th warmest year on record in 132 years, based on real time temperature records from over 1300 weather stations around the globe and satellite readings as well which are not as accurate but do validate trends.
The deniers are always flaunting models and attacking their reliability when I can't think of one warmist here who ever even mentions them
I think we need to take a step back. What we have are people who have decided that they don't accept AGW. If you are of that persuasion then obviously you will look at the 'pause' in warming as evidence supporting your position. If you accept AGW, then you will look towards explanations that mitigate against you having to drop that theory.
So, the only way this issue will be resolved is to wait and see what happens. To those people who believe the 'pause' is evidence against AGW, then I'd ask them a few questions:
1. What is your prediction for the near future, say the next 20 years? Do you predict that temperatures will stay level, rise, or drop? If the answer is, you don't know, then why proclaim the 'pause' as conclusive proof of your position? Why not wait until you see what happens in the future before declaring a victory. This is exactly the problem - your 'science' is reactionary. No predictions, no explanations, just examination of data and picking the bits you think support your position. It's rather pathetic since you never actually have to make a statement and risk getting egg on your face for being proven utterly wrong.
2. If you believe that a 'pause' in warming is evidence against AGW then, if the temperatures increase again, surely that implies you will accept it as evidence for AGW? And if you say, no, you'll believe some natural cause is raising the temperatures after the pause then you've effectively loaded the dice. If temperatures drop, AGW is wrong. If temperatures stay level, AGW is wrong. If temperatures rise, then AGW is still wrong. If temperatures rise but not quite at the rate suggested by a 25 year old paper, then AGW is wrong. If temperatures rise at a rate predicted by the models, then AGW is wrong. Of course, you can get around this by predicting what you think will happen - something like 'because AGW is wrong, temperatures will drop over the next century to pre-industrial levels based on solar cycles' or whatever.
But no ... there's a section of the skeptic and denier community who sit in their box, picking away at the data they dislike, trumpeting the data they do like, and never, EVER, nailing their flag to their mast.
What is wrong with 'wait and see'? If you do that you might get the evidence you so desperately want. But, of course, you might also get evidence that proves the pause was temporary and you were wrong ... oh ... I see why now.
Its cold in Missouri 85 in Arkansas . I should have my heater off now .
Climate Scientist Bernie Sanders say Hurricane Sandy was caused by Global Warming
at the hearing I was watching this morning from 4/6 . He has no proof and wants to base policies on Computer Models that don't show reality . Ed Markey is the same foolish
thinking.
I was going to use the analogy of calling the atom bombing of Hiroshima a pause in the war effort but yours works as well when I remembered that Midway was pretty much the beginning of the end of the Japanese war effort.
What's really humorous are the attempts to explain it followed closely by the attempts to ignore it. The attempts to deny it are just sad.
The only scientific statement that can made about it is that it is a statistically short period of time for climate trends and in no way means that continued long term warming has stopped. And while some of the more sane around here can usually get that out, it's usually framed by statements of moral superiority and/or insults and otherwise demeaning language. And there's nothing funny about that.
Dramatic man-made climate changes, I am sorry, I just can't even crack a smile about. I am only 63 years old. And, I am horrified to relate, the climate I enjoyed as a child---no longer exists. I had the advantage of living in the SAME town for over half a century. I was also an avid gardener. Growing vegetables in your own back yard, for 50 years, gives a heightened perspective on global warming. The temperatures are rising. But, knowing people like I do, we won't even begin to do anything about it until it slaps us upside the head. THEN, it will have our attention---when it is too late.
Agreed. More and more data comes out. As more and more people are tracking and cataloging it it is getting harder and harder for many of hte "official" sources to play with the numbers. In the past they have said we are not intelligent enough to read or understand the raw data. That is horse puck.
None of the models have shown what we are seeing. Yet they continue to cling to those models. Why? Logically and scientifically it makes no sense. The "scientific" response wouold be to seek to analyze what was wrong with the model. Modify the model based on your findings and then see if you can get better. So many of the AGW people don't seem to understand this VERY BASIC tenant.
...hysterically funny to you, like it is to me? Whenever I hear it, I just can't help laughing out loud. It's like referring to the Battle of Midway as a setback.
