I have an analogy on a recent question of Sagebrush's that I answered, about a mountain range with a bunch of people moving dirt with spoons. He was trying to figure out when we went from having "natural" weather to "unnatural" weather, I was trying to explain how we, essentially, have *both*.
Anyone can say what they like, but it does not make it so. If you want to maintain or gain credibility you should stick to facts, evidence and reasonable hypotheses.
Warming has continued within the expected ranges. Air temperature has continued to rise although compared to an exceptionally warm 1997/98 more modestly. Start your counting at any previous year and the up ward trend is strong and steady [apart from normal variability. ]
To claim any event is due to a natural cycle, to have credibility you would need to show that such a natural cycle exists. These things don't just appear out of the blue. If it is a natural cycle then it must have been happening for many hundreds/thousands/millions or years [depending on the nature of the cycle] so there should be ample record of it. So if the current warming is a 'natural cycle' lets hear it...which cycle? Caused by what. Where is the pattern of it in the past? A cycle repeats so lets see the pattern.
The exceptionally warm 1997/98 was part of a very well established natural cycle, El Nino/La Nina and we happen to be in the down turn of that cycle at present. So yes those in support of AGW can point to a natural cycle. But the the prior warming does not match any identified natural cycle so to claim it is is simply not credible.
The pause that you suggest is happening is only happening in the surface temperatures and the pause is only a lower rate of warming and not a pause at all. Our planet is more than just its surface. The deep oceans have warmed (have more heat content) during this same time frame and the oceans represent 70% of the planet's surface and it takes considerably more heat energy to warm water than it does to warm the air. I cannot predict for how long the deep oceans will retain this potential heat energy, but it will become kinetic heat energy at some point in the future.
The "warmers" can only justify their statements by using the science. The "skeptics" have no such bindings placed on them. The "skeptics" can and do use anything that just pops into their mind. They do not use science so they do not have to justify their statements by the use of science.
Honestly I'd be happy if you started arguing that the 15 year pause is a natural cycle. That is the skeptical argument. It's nice to see you coming over to the sane side buddy.
That's because skeptics know that the climate is controlled by natural climate variability anyway with a 95% certainty and a 99% probability.
By the way, there really isn't an actual temperature of the planet that we know of. The temperature we state as "normal" is based on statistical averages over time.
What pause 2012 was the tenth warmest globally and this year will be close to the top ten. I don't see any pause. I think that is more bullsh*t like natural cycle
All this pause sh*t started with a statement in 2012 about the mean temperature not rising. This was a sign to the deniers to start the 16 years no warming and now a pause. They can't tell the difference between actual temperatures and the mean temp.
DA Deniers are gullible, easily led around by their noses, have little science skills and pass along misrepresentation of fact and flat out lies they get by visiting sites and blogs of the paid deniers.
there are natural cycles modulating the long term warming trend. That long term warming trend is not due to any known natural cycles. There is nothing natural about 400PPM CO2 concentrations. No matter how people slice it, there is nothing that can take away the basics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The amount of current radiative forcing is so much higher than before, according to IPCC estimates, yet there is still a pause in temperatures. Pointing to other pauses in the past when there was a lower level of radiative forcing is not explanatory.
BigGryph, how many years does temperature have to stay in the same range before you think it is a pause? Just because it is one of the warmest years on record doesn't mean there is no pause.
______________ / -------------------------
For those those too lazy to use google, Hansen, Sato, and Ruedy 2013 acknowledges a temperature pause.
You can claim whatever you want. Looks like weather has natural cycles no matter what people do, nothing new.
No your allowed to say it, what you cant say is that natural cycles caused the pause, but CO2 caused the warming not natural cycles, you cant have it both ways, if natural cycles can cause cooling they can also cause warming.
Why are "skeptics" allowed to claim that decades of warming is due to a natural cylcle, and yet "warmers" are not allowed to say that the recent "pause" in warming is due to a natural cycle?
Because we are telling the truth, CO2 pushers are not, Plain and simple!
EDIT. Some1has2b the rookie has without realising it completely vindicated my previous posts that the planet is totally responsible for any climate variations, the effect of undersea volcanic and tectonic action!
Because, on the basic very solid (IPCC) two-decades old consensus of AGW, there are no genuine scientific "skeptics" and few "warmers" outside of a few wrinkled ex-hippy druid dudes and their airheaded ex-hippy chicks, but there are tons of multi-aliased science-hating bozos who will regurgitate any of 174+ contradictory pre-fab myths http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... they can misunderstandingly copy-paste from a copy-paste of a copy-paste of Wattsup's BS, and those bozos will call themselves "skeptics" and call real scientists "warmers," because that's what they read on the copy-paste anti-science blogs they visit regularly.
