There Are Now 52 Exlanations for the "Pause" in Global Warming

It is really even easier than that. Science isn't run by consensus. Science is one of those great things where it is completely possible, and has happened before, that the ONE is right, and everyone else wrong because they just part of the consensus...until someone comes along, asks questions, and lays a new idea out there.

Within climate "science", you can easily see the preparation across the years of multiple, POSSIBLY independent ideas and reasons, all deciding that yes, this climate thing is a good deal, then round up some information to support it (in the case of Inconvenient Truth, you actually falsify the information), and presto! Sales success! Science is now settled, game over, we win, we all agree, now lets move on to making money on the wave of compliance we have created, pass the legislation to lock in those profits, etc etc.

Pretty shoddy science, but it isn't really science at this point, but sales. The science is still there..asking questions...doesn't give a crap about the popularity, or consensus, it just IS. And scientists have every reason to squirm when they see that flat temperature, knowing that their models in all their computational beauty might be useless, and therefore will interfere with the "sales".

 

Exactly. Which is why you're free to provide any evidence whatsoever that global warming is caused by anything other than humans.

 

Yep, 'opinion'. You realize that the CO2 centric hypothesis is also just an opinion don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

According to the IPCC the warming from the 1900's to the 1940's wasn't, so what cause that other than something else?

 

There is no such requirement. Humans didn't cause all of this, but it happened anyway. So those wanting to pretend that they know the HUMAN component, are required FIRST to understand how all of THIS happens...the planet doing its normal, "hey, I think I'll warm this era! No, wait, maybe I'll cool!". When the models can be backcast to show that they understand the natural, then we can discuss the difference between a reasonable model that understands the system it is within, and what the deviation from that might be in the future because of human influence. But you don't get to pretend you understand one, without understanding the other FIRST.

 

Glad you asked. A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity. The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/ne...en-erwaermung-durch-co2-und-solaren-einfluss/

 

As the CO2 climate sensitivity keeps going down, the consensus believers scream louder with each decrease.

 

Opinions of the most world reknown experts on climate scientists. At best you could say only 4% think man has little or no influence on climate change. At worst only 1% of the most well published climatologists believe man has little or no effect on climate change. You sure you've got the intelligence and the credentials to butt heads with 99% of the most well published climatologists? You sure any of the skeptic bloggers have the credentials to compete with 99% of the most well published climatologists?

Nothing that's happening today.

 

I hope you realize that most of the 'renown' climate scientists have degrees in other disciplines don't you? Many of them have climbed aboard the Climate Science bandwagon once the money started flowing. Your percentages are pretty far off and irrelevant anyway because you ask only one question when the questions are myriad.

Gosh, you mean the rise in temperature prior to the CO2 meme, which was just as fast and just as long, was caused by nothing?

 

That's not at all uncommon in science. A scientist that expects to be working on the exact same thing throughout their entire career is an unemployed scientist. It's a constantly changing career that moves wherever questions need answers.

Climatology pulls from lots of different scientific fields. Physics, meteorology, chemistry, Earth science, astrophysics, and more. There is nothing remotely shady about that. That's just what happens. In science you prove your worth in your papers and your experiments. Not your degrees.

In that time period solar activity was on the rise. Now solar activity is stable if not decreasing. Today CO2 is the main cause. 1900-1940 it was a smaller contribution of CO2 but a large contribution from the sun.

 

So THAT explains no warming. Got it.

 

Except the sun has been stable since the 1970s and warming continued throughout the 70s 80s and 90s. And warming did continue through the 00 just at a slower pace. Ocean warming did not slow down.

 

We've already discussed this. Global warming, and cooling, has all SORTS of causes. If you are really confused by the hows and whys (as opposed to just wanting to avoid the conversation) I recommend reading what scientists say on the topic.

http://dpa.aapg.org/gcc/

 

LOL...

Are you kidding, they will never admit that!

 

So much bad science, so little time.

 

The words in the image are a lie!

The question in the study is "significant." Not "largely."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/largely

These words have different meaning, but then this is how they fool ignorant people. How can you trust such deceptive practices?

 

Any of those causes happening right now?

 

You asked for explanations of how the world warms and cools. I provided an answer. And the answer to your newest question is, of COURSE all those geologic factors are operating now. The positions of the continents, the current flows, solar flux, varied atmospheric combinations of gases and water vapor, geologic activity such as volcanoes, etc etc, ALL matter. And always have.

 

funny how they want the opposition to answer questions, but yet can't answer any questions themselves. They are ignorant individuals who wish to control.

 

Or just the gullible who have fallen for the scheme designed many years ago to accomplish same.

How about this for a trick question...how many MORE reasons, excuses or scenarios will be dreamed up to explain the temperature pause before 97% of the people surveyed will all nod vigorously when asked the question..."So how about it folks, do we want to go with this as our bestest explanation of why it got it wrong last time?"

 

Yes they all matter but are any of them actively contributing to modern global warming? Is solar activity up? Increased Volcanic activity? Have the continental plates shifted in the past half century enough to cause the warming? That was my question. Provide evidence that anything other than man made activity is the root cause of modern global warming?

If you do the research you'll find the answer to all those is no. Solar activity has been stable or falling over the past few decades. Volcanic activity is stable. 50 years is not enough time for continental shift to have this big of an impact.

You know what is happening? Man made CO2 is changing the composition of the atmosphere.

 

We have entered a deep solar minimum and temps lag by about 12 to 15 years so the last maximum was around 2001/2002 so expect the hiatus to continue and some predict cooling the next few decades.

 

ALL of them, in their current configuration (well understood or not) have contributed to not only the MWP and the LIA but what has been happening since the END of the LIA. You do understand that when a LIA ENDS, what is most likely to happen to have CAUSED that end is NOT more cooling, right? Otherwise, we would have continued to cool until some other things caused temperatures to come back up, and the END of the LIA would have happened at some other point in time.

It just so happened that the end of the LIA was taking place right about the time the Industrial Revolution took off, and presto, instantly a spurious relationship by those not understanding correlation and causation began.

So sure, the configuration of the planet certainly causes temperature to go up...and temperature to go down. Did 1,000,000 years ago, and is now.

Those who assert must also prove. And I am asserting nothing other than the planet's historical temperature record varying wildly in the past, and the changes the planet has seen since the end of the LIA are as likely to be noise within that system as they are anything else, and because the climate folks DON'T or CAN'T account for that natural variability, they don't get to pretend they know DICK about the effects on that system, as opposed to observation data they WANT to pretend has affected the system.

These are quite different issues, and I am allowed to become very suspicious when scientists, supposedly trained to be familiar with the very language that determines whether or not their conclusions are valid, AVOID DOING JUST THAT.

The editor of AAPG #47 that I referenced is quite specific on that topic, and he has it all over those who want just want to throw out some modeling results without even calibrating it against the natural world to at least demonstrate there is a CHANCE that it is predictive in nature, and not modeling the noise in the system.

I was a research scientist in another field for 15 years, I am quite happy with what I was taught, and how I was taught to do it, and am quite unhappy with the lack of the same quality control that I was subjected to, within the climate "science" game. It is like the Keystone Cops of Statistics, these guys.

Cool. And when the modelers figure out how to incorporate this well enough to not screw the pooch on temperature changes (OR NOT) spanning nearly 2 decades, get back with those of us who are sitting here scratching our heads over how bad can those models be, to miss such obvious observations.

CO2 is increasing because of manmade activity, I think I can agree with that. The problem is then those who use that as a spurious relationship, fit regression equations to it, and then have to scramble when it turns out that they never learned correlation doesn't imply causation when they were tadpoles in science school.

 

Why don't you show that man is causing anything. Not been shown yet. that's a lie and you know it. WiNNiNg

 

Sure. Okay. Well...

CO2 is a green house gas.
A physical property of green house gases is it's ability to reflect heat energy.
Adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes global warming. This has happened naturally in other instances throughout history. Generally involving volcanos in the past.

Volcano activity is not higher than usual but CO2 composition of the atmopshere is. Leading us to believe there is another source of CO2
Factory emissions and various vehicles all produce CO2. It just so happens the emissions fill the gap of where the missing CO2 is coming from.

So we know CO2 is on the rise. We know man made machines are causing it. And we know a rising CO2 causes global warming through it's green house gas physical properties.

So that's how we know humans are a cause for modern global warming.