Well the warming rate from CO2 is small enough that it is possible the warming from CO2 will be hidden within natural fluctuations for a short period. Now Ben Santer wrote a paper some years ago saying you need at least 17 years to be able to discern a signal. Now they are looking to walk that back and extend the time frame. Meanwhile they are spreading talking points like these are the warmest years on record. That doesn't refute the argument that global warming has stopped. Alarmists need to realize that they are embarrassing themselves repeating that argument.

Aside from the fact that the pause is mostly or entirely in surface warming (the oceans are still warming pretty quickly, and they hold more heat than the atmosphere), because of the following factors:

PDO (natural, cyclical)

ENSO (natural, cyclical)

the Asian brown cloud (man-made, temporary)

the sunspot cycle (natural, cyclical)

And possibly other factors I'm not immediately aware of.

Dook gave a great link (here's another source for the video, that also has some discussion: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/scie... ). The problem is that weather is "bigger" than climate. It doesn't mean that climate trends don't exist, just that it's not always easy to figure out what they are, because they're hiding in the "noise" of a very noisy system.

Another regular poster (I believe it was Elizabeth) made a good analogy on one of my questions.

You have a pot of water. It starts at 40F, and you turn it up 5 degrees every hour until noon, then down 5 degrees every hour until midnight, every day. The temperature change will be pretty big, but the water will never boil, it won't get hot enough.

Now, you decide to turn it up 6 degrees instead of 5 at midnight, but keep everything else the same. That 1 degree change is smaller than the daily change in water temperature, by a lot. But, that water is going to boil, if you keep that up long enough, because that 1 degree will just keep adding up.

In essence--all the things that made weather/climate "noisy" in the past are still happening. But, in addition, there's the small(ish), but persistent CO2 signal, getting bigger and bigger.

C: Again you show your newness to this site. That record you are referring to, started around 1987 when they standardized global temperature readings. Before that time they had no functional standard. So that really is a moot issue, even if it was true.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...

This shows you how easy it is to fabricate (lie about, in case you don't know the meaning of fabricate) temperatures.

This just proves that your theory is based upon inadequate facts and outright lies. Quit trying to make AGW a reality. It is not. CO2 does not control the temperature. That has been proven by many people on this site.

This is such a good question: Especially the second article. It shows the utter stupidity of the AGW crowd. First they go along with Al Gore and his chart, which shows CO2 and temperature correlating. Then when it is shown that sometimes temperature rose before a CO2 rise they merely wave that off and say it is feedback. Now that the earth has cooled for over a decade (I know the article said fifteen years, but I don't want any dispute about El Nino throwing the scale off and I want to stay out of that argument.) while the CO2 level has gone up, thus disproving Al Gore completely, they merely wave that off as inconsequential. They even admit that Germany deletes decline or like language from their vocabulary when referring to AGW of Climate Change.

Stalin said, “He who controls the language rules the world.” So you see, these elites don't think they need facts, they can just manipulate us by words and that us 'ignorant peons' should just unquestionably fall in line. That is arrogance at its highest degree. It is gong far beyond snake oil salesmanship. And to see words like this being generated by supposedly intellectuals is utterly disgusting.

WAKE UP! The temperature is going DOWN! The CO2 level is going UP! To any true scientist that is a no brainer. Only a con artist would tell you different.

Just look at DORK'S example of wrongful thinking. It is a great example of just how far these greenies are from the path of truth. In a real world the man's path would be determined by a sidewalk or a path of some sort. That is why the man has the leash, to keep the dog's path within the area of the path. The man is controlling the path (the blue footsteps) not the dog. Geesh talk about turning something around. Ha! Ha!

my answer will stir a controversy, but here goes. in my opinion, global warming is

is fiction. why? I believe earth goes through changes over time, just as the poles are shifting now. in the 1970's global cooling was the rage. alright, the people who promote this concept are usually academics who can not disagree with their peers or who do not want to lose their tenure and grants from various companies. let me ask, why do we see glacier melts on tv in the summer. also, the temperature monitors around the world are outdated and out of place. google a search and you can find pics of the monitors that are now on asphalt next to a brick building. well, that will give a false reading. the real answer in my view is the money trail-carb credits......... someone is making money here.

we live in a sound bite society. brief news clips, brief excerpts from scholars,

fast food. please, read and research to get the full story. the bites tell one nothing. except what mainstream media promotes.

read and check everything- global temperature monitors and locations,

then dig and see who is promoting what. al gore lives here in Nashville

and he runs his mansion pretty much as everyone. google his land and home.

read up on climate changes over the long haul. nothing has really changed.

in another year or so, there will be another calamity which needs to be solved

so someone or company will be out to sell something.

it is a conflict of interests and interests.

here is a good start point: go to www.coasttocoastam.com and in their search box type in global warming and about 20+ speakers will come up and you can listen to their debates that all this is a false flag. if unable to listen to, all the speakers have websites devoted to global warming and read, and read more.

thank you for tolerating my diatribe, but this subject jacks me up.

CO2 levels have gone up and the average temperatures are slightly warmer over the past 50 years. There is no dramatic rise in temperatures however only slight.

Christians have a very similar thing in their faith when they talk about the second coming of Jesus. They still believe in the second coming, but they now believe that Jesus returned spiritually rather than physically.

Similarly, the prophets of global warming were not wrong, just misunderstood. A 15 year plateau is still warming if you think about it in the right way.

@linlyons "1998 is no longer the hottest year" said no meteorologist ever.

The usual trick by global warming alarmists is to leave the error bars off their graphs so they can make it look like they discovered a warmer year than 1998, but still claim to be in broad agreement with meteorologists. We all know what "broad agreement" means in that context.

Climate Science can't even establish what the actual temperature is suppose to be at this point in time. Pretty sad when considering how many tax-payer dollars go to them to figure it out. They use temperature anomalies which have fluctuated by an average of 0.35C every year (in one direction or the other) since 1880 and have varied by as much as 1.78C over this time period. The current trend is downward and seems that we are in for a good and cold winter this winter season (2013).

CO2 can not be causing these temperature fluctuations every year and therefore is not a "forcing" when it comes to temperature. "Natural Climate Variability" has (and always will) control over our Planet's temperature fluctuations.

This is the satellite temperature measurement anomaly (G.I.S.S. Temps) since 1979 : http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globa... and it shows that we are currently 0.19C above the 30 year (1981 - 2010) average. If you can understand why climate science considers 0.19C to be "Global Warming", then you can understand that they are a little on the "sensitive" side of the issue and it's not the Planet itself that is sensitive.

Oct 1984 -0.62C

Nov '87 +0.28C

Jan '89 -0.42C

May '91 +0.28C

Sep '92 -0.48C

July '95 +0.21C

Feb '97 -0.30C

Feb '98 +0.67C

Jan 2000 -0.33C

You can clearly see that science has a very hard time finding the "elusive" average temperature. That makes it very easy for climate science to make claims based on their "best guess". LOL!



At least people can stick a cooking thermometer inside a turkey and know when it has been cooked. Science does have its uses. (tic - tongue in cheek) :-)

Gary F - Temperature has the final say on this matter. That's why they call it "Global Warming" and it seems to have stuck. Climate Science has tried to change the meaning because they don't know if it is going to cool. If it does cool, then they can always claim that humans caused that too. Thanks for presenting your climate arrogance anyway. The climate has always changed, but your childish insults never do.

BTW - I'll cook my turkey to between 145F and 160F according to my thermometer and you can cook yours to whatever tastes good to you. Enjoy!

It hasn't occurred in the surface temperature records. The planet is more than a surface. It has depth. Height of atmosphere and depths of ocean.

So, prove that 'global' warming hasn't occurred in the past 15 years as opposed to 'a thin bit of surface hasn't really warmed' and you might, just might, be onto something ...

When you use a global warming denier site, rtcc,

do you really expect it to show you warming?

Do you expect the data to be accurate?

It's not.

If you use wikipedia for CO2, then why not for temperature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumenta...

1998 is no longer the hottest year.

The 2000s are the hottest decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-g...

If you ignore el nino years, the trend is even more obvious.

Every year is hot.

Gee guess what you missed it It has warmed. Fire your know nothing source!

2012 was the 10th warmest year on record. 2013 is 7th so far for the first 10 months of the year

Interesting the top warm years for the planet were within the previous 15

Global Warmest Years 1880-2012

Annually averaged temperature

1-2010

2-2005

3-1998

4-2003

5-2002

6-3 way tie

2006,2009,2007

9-2004

10-2012

You believed a lie. That is what skeptics do. Because they deny the truth they are easily influenced by bad science.

Some1Has2BTheRookie is right. You answered your own question. So, why did you ask it?

=====

whatever ---

>>correlation does not imply causation. i kinda presented this in class<<

Not sure what you are trying to say, but this is a common saying constantly misused by scientifically illiterate Deniers. No one has ever claimed that AGW is based on a simple correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature. The correlation is legitimate scientific evidence because the relationship is based on established scientific laws, principles, and theories, and is consistent with the results of numerous other independent scientific investigations.

======

zippy --

>>At least people can stick a cooking thermometer inside a turkey and know when it has been cooked.<<

Turkeys do not cook uniformly (e.g., dark and white meet cook at different rates).

The extent and depth of your ignorance always impresses.

======

zippy --

>>That's why they call it "Global Warming" <<

And why they don't call it "Surface Warming."

Graph of CO2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

Graph of global temperature:

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/23/global-cooling-how-will-the-ipcc-explain-15-year-temperature-hiatus/

It is'nt/ Global warming ended in 2012 and all non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature protecting earth. Nothing wrong with earth's environment. Just a ex-Presidents lies to the public because Cain was'nt voted into the Presidency. Mike

Some1has2btherookie.

Read the article, hmm what a crap article, by no means does it explain the pause, and equating drinking pesticide to CO2 is an even worse analogy than even Chem Flunky could come up with.

The climate sensitivity to CO2 is so low, that is overridden by any natural fluctuations around, santer said we must wait 17yrs, now that is up they are saying 30yrs, in 30yrs time they will change it to a 100yrs.

The facts are that CO2 warming effect logarithmically diminishes with concentrations and at 400ppm is saturated ( try find a scientist to deny that) the answer you will get is if you keep adding Co2 it will keep warming infinitely, but they wont tell you it will warm in infinitely smaller amounts, so small as to be insignificant if measurable at all.

Too many factors to calculate

It's a process that increases with increase of greenhouse gases, but maybe not in the same amplitude?

Warming may have slowed down, due to natural factors, but it has continued over the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...