Hit & Run

Global Warming Hiatus Is Real

The rate of temperature increase has been dramatically slower than predicted, says Nature Climate Change.



Lots of climate researchers and climate change activists have been discombobulated by the fact that global average temperature increases have been considerably slower during the first years of this century than most climate models projected. There have been scores of studies that have tried to explain away this inconvenient fact. One of the more heralded studies was published by researchers associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in June, 2015. That study eliminated the hiatus by controversially adjusting ocean temperature data derived from robot buoys to match earlier data temperature data taken by ocean-going ships.

Now a group of climate researchers in Nature Climate Change have published an article, "Making sense of the early-2000s warming," that argues the hiatus is real and not well understood. Interestingly, it includes as co-authors some of the more prominent climate researchers who have challenged the notion of the "pause." For example, last June, Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann crowed:

Just out in Science is a new article by Tom Karl of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and colleagues driving another stake through the heart of the supposed "hiatus" or "pause," i.e. what I like to call the "Faux Pause."

I expect this article will be attacked by climate change deniers who are unhappy to see the demise of a narrative they helped frame, a narrative that arguably took hold due in part to the "seepage" of contrarian framing into mainstream climate science discourse.

Mann is now a co-author on the new study that pulls that stake out:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

Has Mann become climate change "denier" now? Hardly.

About the new study, Nature News reports:

The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.

An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a "hiatus" or a "pause" when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

"There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing," says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. "We can't ignore it."

Fyfe uses the term "slowdown" rather than "hiatus" and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

A graph comparing climate model projections, a.k.a., Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CIMP5) with satellite data from Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama in Huntsville is most illuminating. See below.


Overlapping trend in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), spatially averaged over the near-global (82.5°N, 70°S) coverage of two satellite-based datasets; model results are from 41 simulations of historical climate change performed with 28 CMIP-5 models, with RCP8.5 extensions from 2005. Peaks in the running 15-year trends centred around 2000 reflect recovery from the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

Another co-author, Ed Hawkins, who is at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, notes:

Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming, especially when examined relative to our expectations, which can be explained by a combination of factors. Research into the nature and causes of this event has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing and internal variability. This has led to more widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more — particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions.

The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.

Indeed. But if the rate of temperature increase continues to remain low, at what point do the models and projections of catastrophic warming get called into question by mainstream researchers?

NEXT: U.S. Reps Seek to End Money Bail in America

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well Jeeze Ron. That is what I have been saying. The evidence doesn't match the conditions.

    Note. The solar output is in decline. It is the sun.


    1. I thought it was "settled science" that variations in solar output have no effect, none at all, on our climate.

      1. The science has always been settled.

        1. Since the days of Galileo the science has been settled, burn those deniers!

        2. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

        3. thats what makes it science!

      2. I have watched dissertations and read a decent chunk of explanations as to why certain climate scientists believe the sun has less effect on temperature than other things like CO2, methane, etc.

        None of them are remotely convincing, and the lengths at which they twist the data in order to get to their point always seem a bridge too far.

        Whereas there are tons of examples of low sunspot activity and temperature change on the planet over the last several thousands of years.


        I don't understand why this is so controversial.

        1. It's controversial because sunspot activity won't justify all the bullshit programs and government control that they desire.

          1. 1,000,000,000% this.

          2. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

            1. You're so cheap. Why don't you dig a little deeper and get him a steak dinner.

          3. That's because they are thinking small. Imagine how much money we would need to control the sunspot activity.

          4. Not really. Solar activity goes in cycles. So on the assumption that humans are capable of causing significant changes to climate, next time the sun reaches a maximum output, it will be even worse. That's what I've heard from alarmists a lot more than any denial that sunspot cycles are significant.

        2. Let's see:

          Venus is a lot closer to the sun than earth and is boiling hell. Check

          Mars is a lot farther away from the sun than earth and is frozen rock. Check

          I'm seeing some argument here for sun being a climate factor.

          1. Are you a top man? I didn't think so.

          2. So we need to move the sun further from the sun?

            1. Yes, if we move all the parts of the sun far enough away from all the other parts, the result will effectively abate any long-term warming of the Earth.

              1. We need to gather all of the robots on an island with the head of Nixon and the headless body of Agnew, point their exhaust pipes up and have them... well, you know the rest.

          3. As I understand it, Venus enjoys higher temperatures than Mercury, even though the latter planet holds a position nearer to the sun. The temperature difference between the planets is due to Venus' atmosphere.

            1. Therefore, politicians obviously need to take action now to prevent earth becoming another Venus.

              The best course of action is for politicians to gain enormous power over our lives, so that the world can be saved. We cannot mimic the Venusians' mistakes.

          4. Yeah unfortunately that isn't very sound logic.

            If the earth with it's existing size, mass, and atmosphere were shifted to either Venus or Mars orbit it would still remain a planet capable of supporting human life. It would be a hell of a lot hotter and colder respectively and it might never have evolved complex human life but it could support it and we could live there.

            So the Sun is not the entire story there.

            1. Did someone suggest the sun was the entire story and I missed it?

              1. No, but the observation that it is hotter closer to the sun and cooler farther away is utterly obvious and adds nothing to the discussion. The question isn't whether the sun makes a planet warmer depending on how much radiation it gets from the sun. It is how much the sun contributes to short term climate variations on Earth.

                1. Well, sort of. Isn't the Earth closer to the sun during the winter and further away in the summer ? There are factors beyond just relative distance.

                  1. The tilt of the Earth's rotation with respect to the orbital plane around the sun creates the seasons. The change in distance is insignificant. If distance from the sun caused the seasons then both hemispheres would be in the same season at the same time and not alternate.

                2. Or long term.

                  But again, limited opportunity for the control crowd.

          5. The atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2. We have instruments on the surface and in orbit presumably measuring both incoming UV and outgoing IR radiation. It's the perfect laboratory for measuring the GHG effect if it exists and yet NASA has never done the correlation. I wonder why?

            1. I've seen that there is some correlation between warming on Mars and Earth

        3. "I don't understand why this is so controversial."

          You are kidding, right?

        4. It is absurd to suggest that the Sun isn't the biggest factor, at least potentially.

        5. I've never really heard anyone try to deny the significance of variable solar activity. If they do, they are pretty stupid. What I have heard is that some of the warmer years recently have happened during times of relatively low solar activity and so the sun didn't make much positive contribution to the warming. I don't know if that's true or not.

          I find this whole debate very frustrating. It seems like a lot of people on both sides only address their opponents' worst arguments. I think that the state of climate science is pretty bad. But there are still a lot of people honestly trying to do good science in the field who do address these questions.

          1. It seems like a lot of people on both sides only address their opponents' worst arguments.

            For me, it is the disingenuous arguments, the politics, and the many scientific fallacies, that leaves me struggling to take any of the alarmist claims seriously.

            I currently consider myself a Lukewarmist: that is, I acknowledge that there is climate change; that there has been some warming (which is now pausing); and that humans probably have made some contribution to it. But I've seen no evidence that there is anything remotely cataclysmic about it, and I'm convinced that 1 to 3 ?tag=reasonmagazinea-20 will actually be good for many.

            1. ^ This. Over and over again, this.

          2. I think that the state of climate science is pretty bad.


            Fix Mars and Venus (not necessarily in that order) then, *maybe*, you can "fix" Earth.

        6. So - the sun is full of CO2? 'Cause CO2 is the evil gas, which we must sacrifice all, radically transformation of society at any cost, to control. So sayeth "the consensus" of sciency people, and stuff.

    2. Ron's not getting invited to any more cocktail parties.

      1. H: Just where and when are those damned cocktail parties you keep going on about?

        1. My house Ron. Be warned, I pour with a heavy hand.

        2. That's what we want to know. You have to take us all to the next one, it will be fun.

          1. All of the contributors have to sign a pledge to never admit to or reveal the locations of the cocktail parties. Just imagine if the commentariat were to show up.

            1. *runs to window, crawls out and races away across lawn*

              1. Come back, Swiss! This is YOUR HOUSE

            2. Cocktail parties are the new underground raves. Only the hippest kids are in the loop.

              1. Do NOT accept "cocktail party" invites from Warty. You might think the way he spells it "cock/tail" is just a typo, but you would be sorely mistake. And I do mean sorely.

            3. The first rule of Cocktail Club is you don't talk about Cocktail Club
              The second rule of Cocktail Club is YOU...DON'T...TALK...ABOUT...Cocktail...Club
              The third rule of Cocktail Club is on their first night everyone drinks

        3. Ron-

          1 1995: COP 1, Berlin, Germany
          2 1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland
          3 1997: COP 3, Kyoto, Japan
          4 1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina
          5 1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany
          6 2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands
          7 2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany
          8 2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco
          9 2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India
          10 2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy
          11 2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina
          12 2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada
          13 2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya
          14 2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia
          15 2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Pozna?, Poland
          16 2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark
          17 2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Canc?n, Mexico
          18 2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa
          19 2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar
          20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland
          21 2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru
          22 2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France

  2. "There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing," says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. "We can't ignore it."

    When adjusted observations don't match computer models the only thing to do is adjust more. Adjust like your grants depend on it!

    1. We have to protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen!

      1. I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy.

    2. "Adjust like your grants depend on it!" Love it! Quote of the year.

  3. Or...temperature fluctuates and there's no "hiatus of global warming", just fluctuation. But that would mess with people's religion, so...nope. It's good to know that religious fanatics come in all forms.

    1. temperature fluctuates and there's no "global warming" or "hiatus of global warming",

      Would you agree, Epi?

      1. I thought that was clearly implied. What's your point?

        1. I thought it was implied, too, but I could imagine a warmista saying the pause was just natural fluctuation, unlike the previous warming trend.

          Jus' checking, is all.

          1. Oh, so you tried a gotcha and failed miserably. Got it.

            I'm a bit surprised that you're not observant enough to have seen my constant criticism of Ron's "warming reports" and the entire "climate change" cult in general.

            1. Oh, so you tried a gotcha and failed miserably.

              Since when is asking for a clarification, politely, a "gotcha"?

              Chill, man. Geez.

            2. Oh, and yeah, I figured you were a skeptic. One of the reasons I asked - it seemed a little out of step with where I thought you were.

          2. Check out Joe Maccarthy over hear.

            1. Also here. Proof reeding how do it workz.

        2. What's going on here is that when you are being too subtle then it's more than just sun activity at work.

          1. Well, I did manage to sleep past 5:30 this morning, maybe that's it. Or it could be the full moon.

      2. Depends on what scale you are looking at, no? No one thinks that climate doesn't fluctuate. No one denies that there have been long term warming and cooling trends throughout the history of the Earth. On the time scale of human lives, or even human civilizations, there is almost certainly such things as global warming and global cooling. Maybe human activity has a significant effect, or maybe not. I really don't give a shit. If people are causing it, then that's what's going to happen. And we will need to react in exactly the same way as if it were just natural fluctuations. I'm just pissed that the science has become so politicized because it is a really interesting subject, but I have no confidence in what I read about it because everyone seems to have an agenda.

  4. Fyfe uses the term "slowdown" rather than "hiatus" and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

    Yes, it in fact does. If your models aren't predicting things accurately, they are wrong. Your belief on carbon sensitivity is wrong.

    1. When observations fail to match predictions, then the hypothesis the predictions were based on has been falsified. That is science, which has nothing to do with "consensus".

      1. Reasoned arguments relying on the tried and true scientific method don't seem to work. I think we just need trump to say it's "unbelievable."

        1. Poor Feynman. Spinning like a yoga instructor's stomach in a class full of Jezebel commenters wearing lululemon pants.

          1. Well THAT'S evocative.

      2. It is science, and yet not really embraced by a bunch of people that claim they Fucking Love Science.

      3. ^^^THIS!^^^^ 100%

  5. Moreover, the political notion that the science is settled, and any scientist who claims the science is settled is wrong. Quite clearly they have a lot of things they don't understand and these researchers have admitted as much here. So they could be right on global warming and carbon in the atmosphere to some extent, but they quite clearly do not understand the exact mechanics of global climate and the precise sensitivity of climate to carbon emissions.

    So tell them to stop acting like propagandists, and maybe some of us will be a little more willing to take them seriously.

    1. Anyone who uses the term "climate change denier" is not a scientist, they are a propagandist. Skeptics do not deny that the climate changes, it has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. They simply deny that it has been proven that the recent warming is the result of manmade CO2 rather than just a normal warming cycle.

      1. They simply deny that it has been proven that the recent warming is the result of manmade CO2 rather than just a normal warming cycle

        And some skeptics are perfectly willing to concede human involvement but might be disputing the severity, implications and/or the incompleteness of the research. Yet skeptics generally get lumped in with young earth creationists in terms of the incredibility of their theses.

        1. This!!! Even if one accepts that man-made CO2 is a significant contributor to increased global avg temperature (whatever that even really means), there really is no evidence that this is, on net, a catastrophically bad thing. Perhaps there will be bad outcomes (sea levels rising, but why aren't the Maldives underwater yet?), but what about increased growing seasons. Droughts in some areas, but perhaps more water in others. Every negative prediction that has been made seems to not come true (no snow, shrinking ice caps, fewer polar bears, etc.).

          1. I believe ipcc doesn't just say significant; they say the majority contributor.

          2. Ron's story yesterday on sea level rise in the 20th century kind of proved the point. The argument presented (based on flimsy models, in my amateur view) was that most of the sea level came from global warming. This was supposed to be a warning about future warming, but the first question I had was - who really cares? The sea level rose, and the world moved on. It adapted.

            Global warming alarmists talk about how x will happen (gradually, over the course of the next century), but they don't ever actually show that x is all that bad or big a deal. They skip that step and just go to extreme pant shitting mode. We are all going to die because the sea rises a bit, NY will be under water etc.

            1. Look this prediction will come true, mkay?

              Forget the 8,000 previous predictions that never panned out, this one is the one!

            2. I would add that the study didn't really show that sea level has risen at all given the inexact measurements and that the headlined assertion, that it rose faster in the 20th century than any century in the last 27000 years is in direct contradiction to the math.

              Yeah, I know. I was a little drunk. Decimal places slide around in my head when lubricated by vodka, but my point stands.

              1. Well, if you mixed that vodka with anything carbonated, then you can blame industrialization for you plight.

        2. Yeah.

          I'm perfectly willing to say that human CO2 emissions have non-zero effect on world climate.

          I just haven't seen any evidence worth the electrons it took to display that the magnitude of effect might not as well round to zero.

          They're trying to sell me catastrophe, and they're trying way too hard for the available evidence, and every "double down" makes me less likely to believe them.

          They're not acting like scientists, they're acting like salesmen.

          1. Yes. If the sun has an effect that is, say the square root of the solar variability and CO2 concentration has an effect to the fourth root, you can probably neglect CO2 concentration unless you posit also that CO2 concentration change is several orders of magnitude larger than solar variability.

  6. Geez, all you have to do is look at the monthly chart Ron puts up to know that the hiatus is real. I think you really have to not want it to be real to go to all this extra work.

    "Damn this data! Can I torture it to tell me something other than what looks pretty obvious?"

    [screams, groans, clanking of heavy machinery, mysterious dripping and plopping sounds]

    "This data just won't see the light! It still insists on . . on . . reality!"

  7. So I just got a phone call from some IRS scam. Any ideas how I can screw with these clowns besides reporting them to some agency?

    1. Send them pictures of your penis?

    2. There was a guy who once trolled a bunch of Nigerian 419 scammers by looking just amenable and gullible enough that they were willing to act on his 'reasonable' but escalating requests. And by reasonable but escalating I mean he eventually convinced them to send him pictures of their junk (the floppy bits of anatomy, not random clutter).

        1. Junk pictures are so high school. Why do that when you can make the scammers pose with insulting signs instead?

          1. How do I make this happen? I have a truck, machete, zip ties and a propensity towards violence. I just need a little guidance.

            1. I have a truck, machete, zip ties and a propensity towards violence.

              You really are a Florida Man, aren't you?

      1. I'll give them this, they are convincing at first until the guy said it was a final notice and they sent 2 certified letters. I said if you sent certified letters I would have had to sign for them. Then it was 2 agents went to my house. Then I said fuck you this is a scam. I want to troll them somehow, but don't really know how to go about it other than repeatedly call and blowing an air horn in the receiver.

        1. Time is money for these people. Every minute they spend talking to someone like you is wasted in their book. So that's the easiest way to troll them. Just keep them on the phone as long as you can. Of course this is a waste of your time too, but you're from Florida, so really it has the added bonus of keeping you out of trouble.

          Or you could give them false information and have them waste time trying to use it...

          1. I like the false info part.

            1. The time wasting is good. "Hang on, I have something on the stove." "Oops, the doorbell. Don't go away, I'll be right back." "Do you know which apartment you sent it to? Was it 'A' or 'B'?" Etc.

      2. Those Nigerian scammers are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. All the broken English, misspelled emails, etc are deliberate. They do that to weed out intelligent people, it's essentially a pre-screen to become a victim. It's really brilliant when you think about it. They simultaneously eliminate people who wouldn't fall for it or know how to report it, and present this "nobody would fall for this crap" identity that helps keep heat off them.

    3. Explain to them in detail what services their family members offer to sailors at bargain prices.


    4. Here is the number in case it pops up on your caller ID. I don't usually answer numbers I don't know, but I was expecting a bid from a contractor.

      +1 (360) 810-6206

      1. It's somewhat tedious, but you can report them to the FCC. I did that pretty religiously for a while, and my spam calls have dropped to near zero. No more calls from "Robert" with the Indian accent from "Microsoft Technical Support." I kept one on the line for about 5 minutes before I asked him how his mother would feel if she knew he was scamming innocent people. I got cursed out for that!

    5. Turn the scam around on them. Tell them you can get the money they need but you need a little yourself to be able to do that. If they send you only a small 100 bucks to pay late fees on your account you can fix them up.

      Then take your wife out to dinner on the 100 bucks.

    6. Reporting them won't help - they'll just be using a VOIP relay in the US and sitting in a room in Islamabad or something.

      The best thing you can do to screw them over is waste their time on the phone...

  8. Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming

    Ron, perhaps you can explain to me how these scientists can be so sure that the slowdown is temporary? They don't understand the causes of it, which they admit, but they talk in absolutes in terms of this slowdown that they begrudgingly admit is real being temporary.

    1. It's temporary because it must be temorary, because manmade CO2 must be causing global warming, because it must. Do you see?

      1. if we were ever to admit any remote possibility that the pause might not be temporary, oil company shills would seize on that admission and enable the corrupt republicans (who run everything) to befoul the land, boil the seas, choke the skies with smoke, and pollute every last innocent forest creature down into filth-ridden grave. Or do you want to live in Flint, Michigan? Yes or No?

        i didnt think so

  9. I heard on NPR (so it must be true, unlike FAUX News) that this pause is indeed a result of declining solar output. But that output cycles. What goes down will come back up. And when it does the rebound will be catastrophic. Imagine a staircase-graph if you will. We're on a step right now. When the sun rebounds we will jump up to the next step. Global temperatures will rise dramatically all at once, and it will be an epic disaster. That is why we must continue to do all we can to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Only a science denier would say otherwise.

    1. I heard the step theory about three years ago. I'm surprised it took this long to make it mainstream. I would of thought it would have become the defacto argument after the pause hit ten years.

      1. Oh Tulpy-Poo, are you feeling lonely? You want to be part of the discussion? Too bad you're a mendacious scumbag that everyone despises. How does that feel? Does it feel good?

    2. This ridiculous debate has little to do with science and more to do with a crowd of self-hating hippies who want to force everyone to live in mud brick huts and eat locally-sourced free-trade organic wheat grass around their drum circles.

  10. Egad. First ground drones, now Global Warming. I think Ron is having fun today.

    1. When I read this:
      "For example, last June, Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann..."

      I knew Ron had taken a gig at The Onion.

  11. That's the mess.

    The actual effect of atmospheric CO2 is pretty well understood. It scatters IR radiation much the way nitrogen scatters blue light. I think the number is something lik 1.2 degrees C increase in temperature every time the concentration of CO2 doubles (it's proportional to the logarithm of concentration).

    The uncertainty is entirely in the realm of feedbacks: how do all the various systems that make up the climate react to the increased IR scattering.

    The CAGW crowd thinks the feedbacks are very positive ie. increased IR scattering results in higher temps resulting in greater evaporation, methane production etc - all of which enhance the CO2 effect, resulting in an effective 3 - 6 C increase in temps for each doubling of CO2.

    The empirical observations of short term climate responses to CO2 concentration changes imply a much smaller number, between 1 and 2, meaning either mildy positive feedbacks or negative ones.

    My guess is that it will turn out to be both; most of the systems are coupled nonlinearly - and behave differently at different temps.

    In the meantime, the natural variation that drove things like the Roman warm period and the little ice age are very poorly understood.

    I expect that we will find that the feedbacks are negative (which is why climate is so stable despite the wild varying flux that hits the Earth on a daily , weekly and monthly scale.

    Absent an explanation for why the natural cooling and heating happens, it's all navel gazing.

    1. Plus, isn't there basically a saturation level where more CO2 doesn't really matter any more as far as warming goes? I thought I read somewhere that CO2 alone couldn't increase surface temps by more than 2.0 C?

      1. There is, but it's not quite that simple.

        Imagine an atmosphere without and CO2. If you start adding molecules, initially, most IR will go through the air without scattering off of any CO2 molecules. As you add more and more CO2, the mean distance an IR photon will travel before being scattered starts to drop until it has a good chance of not making it out of the atmosphere without being scattered.

        At that point, adding more CO2 doesn't really have the same impact; all the photons will be scattered, non will make it out to space without getting at least one bounce. Thus the heating effect is reduced.

        BUT, scattering takes time. The more CO2, the longer it takes for a given packet of energy stored in a photon leaving the ground to make it out to space. And that length of time gets longer and longer the more CO2 is in the atmosphere.

        And one can see the end result of that length of time here on Earth with the mantle. The heat source of melting it is radioactive material in the core and mantle of the Earth. That heat takes so long to migrate out to the Earth's crust that a very slow rate of radioactive decay translates into very high temperatures.

        That's why Venus is such a hell holl. The CO2 atmosphere is very slow to move heat from the surface layer to the upper atmosphere.

        1. That's why Venus is such a hell holl. The CO2 atmosphere is very slow to move heat from the surface layer to the upper atmosphere.

          Well, and it's a lot closer to the sun, and that whole inverse-square thing.

          I also find it interesting that, to the best of my understanding of the paleoclimactic record, we see both:

          a) Higher CO2 at various points, than now, with [best guess, natch] lower temperatures
          b) CO2 levels that lag temperature changes, rather than leading or corresponding directly with them.

          The paleoclimactic thing was what first really, really made me skeptical about the IPCC model and the related claims. "CO2 causes higher temperatures" is hard to reconcile with data showing CO2 as a lagging indicator...

          1. Venus is more complicated than just insolation and ghg. Yes its insolation is double earth's. It also has over double the albedo of earth meaning it reflects more than twice as much as earth. The big prooblem venus has is a thick atmosphere with no water due to sputtering.

            1. NAS, I went to high school with Al Bedo. These days, he has a bigger bald spot than anyone else in our class. That reflectivity is the source of the global warming problem. He refuses to wear a hat.

          2. The surface temperature on Venus is around 870 degrees Fahrenheit. This is way too high to be primarily the result of the inverse square law.

            The atmosphere on Venus is so thick that light gets refracted all the way around the planet. Atmospheric pressure at the surface is 90x earth. It is quite the blanket. 50 km up in the air where the pressure is close to earth's, the temperature is about double ours.

        2. I have had this discussion many times with people, that "deniers" aren't denying C02 being a greenhouse gas, but rather that the feedback mechanisms are not well understood. This is where you go off into "Well that's the job of the scientists...our scientists, not the Big Oil-Funded scientists!"

          But more importantly, if you are such a smarty pants, how come you lost Tunis last season?

          1. Someone knifed me in the back, that's why! That's OK, we italians know revenge.

      2. The absorption bands for water vapor and co2 overlap so at the ground level adding more co2 doesn't do much (yes, it's still logarithmic). Heat gets transported up thru convection and latent heat transport (evaporation). Co2 can exist in the upper atmosphere where there is less h2o. That is where the effect really takes place and why the models predict the tropospheroc hot spot since more heat should be getting trapped there. The fact that there isn't said hot spot indicates that the models are not capturing the real physics.

        1. The fact that there isn't said hot spot indicates that the models are not capturing the real physics.

          This is the most important point! CAGW is falsified by that observation alone.

          1. Climatology depends on statistics not physics and can't be falsified by physics. For instance if you have 5 apples and 7 oranges, the statistical average is (5+7)/2 = 6 things. If you have a cup of water at 80 degrees and a bathtub full of ice at 0 degrees, the average temperature is 40 degrees, so you pour the water into the bathtub and you can have a nice bath. Statistics.
            Physics says that you have to take into account things like latent heat, volumes of water and ice and lots of icky calculations which are really hard when you have a big rocky ball with a molten core covered in deep layers of cold water, ice, water vapour, air and flatulent creatures. It's so much easier to stick with statistics and even better, a lot of other people think physics is icky and statistics is easy. With the consensus on your side, why bother with physics.

    2. In the meantime, the natural variation that drove things like the Roman warm period and the little ice age are very poorly understood.

      That was from a thermostat battle between Jupiter and Juno.

      1. We mortals always pay when they have their little marital spats.

    3. Yes, it's all about feedbacks. The alarmists tend to see positive feedbacks, but the Earth's climate is something of a homeostatic system.

    4. Nicely put. If anyone is interested in this sort of thing, I recommend Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre's blog. It can be heavy going due to the maths, I just skim over that. The topics covered give an interesting insight into a lot of the climate reconstruction game.

    5. I would be careful about assuming that what happens in a sealed laboratory system holds true for our atmosphere. Concentrations of CO2 have been much, much higher in the past when temperatures were lower. I am not certain that the cause and effect could be reversed in their theory.

      A colder ocean holds a lot more dissolved CO2 than a warm one.

  12. What's a 'mainstream researcher'?

    Man, all this mental energy wasted on what amounts to fluctuations. It's akin to financial analysts and brokers arguing vehemently over the volatility founds in an Andex Chart.

  13. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The correct analysis is to say that any reduction in warming must be due to the progress that's been made so far, and that given this encouraging result, it is not misplaced, the hope that we can indeed save the world in our lifetimes!

    1. Imagine if we imprisoned deniers! We'd get things done much faster!

  14. My grade 7 class want's to know;
    -Why are there always countless thousands of more consenting climate change scientists than "believing" climate change protesters?
    -Why does science agree smoking causing cancer is real but a CO2 Armageddon is only "99% real"?
    -Are climate change scientists also only 99% certain the planet isn't flat?
    -Isn't it too late now to save the planet after the last 35 years of climate action delay?
    -What is stopping another 35 years?
    -Does CO2=Y2K??

    1. To the extent I understood Grade 7 logic and the way it was conveyed here...

      "-Isn't it too late now to save the planet after the last 35 years of climate action delay?"

      If the earth was 50 years old maybe.

      But given its actual age I don't think the planet gives a shit about this tiny sample size.

    2. I'm sorry, but you're not allowed the answers to those questions until you've graduated to 8th grade.

    3. Ask them to try answering these questions themselves, by putting on their skeptical caps and assuming that the people pushing AGW theory have a vested financial interest in claiming their theory is correct -- and see what answers they come up with.

      1. What's financial mean?

    4. fuck off troll

  15. Sea levels are rising! I live at least 50 miles from the coast and I can see the ocean out my window this morning! Oh wait, that's the creek up again, it's been raining a lot. But I'm warning you, this is our last chance to do something!

    Seriously, has anyone measured this unprecedented rise in sea levels that's suddenly been noticed by the leftwing media? Where are the photos of resorts underwater?

    1. "Where are the photos of resorts underwater?"

      Where are the rising insurance premiums? Where are the crashing sea-side real-estate prices?

      1. All I've got is a doctored photo of a "drowning" polar bear. Will that do?

        1. It looks like it will have to do.

      2. What? You expect markets to respond and react to changing conditions? You must be some kind of Capitalist oppressor or something.


  16. The way Nature News phrased this made me laugh:
    But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

    It only takes a little bit of snarkiness to rephrase that whole sentence as "BREAKING: Fiddling with data parameters allows any conclusion to be drawn as desired"!

  17. Global climate change can't be solved by advanced technologies like putting solar panels on houses, investing in energy conservation, and nuclear energy. No, lefty asshole. Global climate change is going to be addressed by advanced, advanced technology. I'm thinking zero-point energy, coupled to a giant co2 vacu-suck, after seeding the ocean with Ice-9, of course.

    1. Oh, Tulpy-Poo, changing socks because you so desperately want your eristic masturbation? You're so wonderfully, fantastically pathetic. I love it.

        1. i dont buy it. Amsoc is too dumb and Tulpa's ego is too big

        2. The Commenter who was Thursday, a Nightmare.

          1. Get with the times. We all Tulp down here.

    2. Wrong! It can only be solved by taking away money from hard working, but dirty racist people in first world countries and giving it to 3rd world dictators like Robert Mugabe.

      Get with the fucking program, comrade, or you're a Republican denier!

    3. Leftists such as yourself are the reason we can't have nuclear energy. Solar panels are massively inefficient and despite what an arrogant, sociopathic jackass such as yourself thinks, value isn't some hocus pocus nonsense that is arbitrarily defined by evil capitalists. Energy efficiency has been increasing all on its own without the heavy hand of government.

    4. You've got a giant vacu-suck in your what, now?

  18. "Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped."

    Its single sentence-summaries like this which undermine my confidence in any of the media-reporting on Climate Change issues.

    Is that at all a fair description of the claims made by critics? All I've seen is that people have used the 'slowdown' to fortify their criticisms that existing models vastly overestimate the warming effect - Not that anything ever "Stops": which seems to be a bullshit strawman constructed to avoid actually acknowledging that those critics were 100% Correct.

    Instead, the media pretends that critics held far more extreme positions while the AGW-hype-machine simply modestly modifies its own historical claims and pretends that the "new data" simply reaffirms what they've always believed! (playing down the extremity of their own prior estimates in the process)

    1. Well, we all know that whatever Sarah Palin says is no different than what Anthony Watts says.

  19. Superb work-from-home opportunity for anyone...ff Work for three to eight hours daily and start earning about $4k-$8k each month... Regular weekly payments...If this interest you try here Viset My Page........

    -------- http://www.alpha-careers.com

  20. Mann says, "It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."

    Mann doesn't bother to say, "... and I was one of those who made these claims.

    1. " and called anyone who disagreed Satan"

  21. God is on a hiatus too. You just wait.

  22. I have seen gophers out sunning themselves two days in a row. Gophers. In FEBRUARY. We're doomed.

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED, I tells yez!

  23. From the graph attached, it doesn't appear to be a "slowdown" in warming. It appears to be a "stop". Am I missing something?

    1. The Remote Sensing System data appears to show not just a stop but a slight drop at the end. The UAH data shows temps returning to late 80's temps. The model data is useless but it is interesting that it has dipped back down almost as low as the peak observed temps.

      Their hand waiving about volcanos and solar activity tell me that volcanos and solar activity are the major factors here and CO2 is the negligible factor.

      Keep in mind that hiding behind all of this pseudoscience by Mann, Algore and co. is a scam, plain and simple. Saying that is no more a denial of climate variability or even of man's effect on climate than pointing out that the Piltdown Man was a hoax is a denial of Darwinian evolution.


    1. I assure you that a new ice age is coming.

  25. Some people find it frightening that scientific facts are revisable given new data that conflicts with them, but others, who are more comfortable with the real world and its uncertainty, laugh at those who treat scientific facts as if they were metaphysical truths.


    B-B-B-But, libertarryenz! How can we bully uneducated slobs into doing what we want if we can't sell the beliefs of scientists as absolute truths? We went to college and everything!

    If it weren't for appeals to authority, would run of the mill progressives know anything at all?

  26. Freeze, you didn't pay your carbon tax that increased the earth's degrees!

  27. There has been no hiatus because the long term trend is clear. Up. Any glance at a temperature graph shows variations in the short term...even a longer cooling period compared to the current slowdown (1944 to 1979).


    The long term trend is clear and remains.

    By the way, the study goes up to 2014, and doesn't include the even warmer year of 2015.

    And here I thought Michael Mann couldn't be trusted!

    1. Your religious devotion is breathtaking. Even when Top Men tell you that there is infact a warming pause, you still claim that there is none. But I'm actually glad that you came along to act as a reminder that this whole enchilada is political.

      It's obviously political because the solutions proposed are always and consistently political. Furthermore, it's political because the funders of this science are the United Nations and governments with a political benefit to gain from the always political solutions proposed. The numbers are anything but catastrophic yet the claimed results always are. CAGW is bullshit and your devotion to it is bullshit.

      1. Read again.

        "Fyfe uses the term "slowdown" rather than "hiatus" and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory"

        There is no pause or hiatus, according to the author. What's breathtaking is your inability to understand.

        1. Damn, you are dense. Just how in the hell does anyone know what global temperatures will do in the future unless they've already been there?

          Do you really expect thinking people to accept this kind of bullshit prediction of the future? The only predictive tool available is a myriad of computer models that have shown themselves incapable of predicting a single change that has been actually measured. The only person who would put any weight down on such a model is one who is wedded to the politics of the solution. You, are political and have not a single scientific cell in your brain.

          1. Don't go away angry now!

            1. What makes you think I'm angry. I'm frustrated, yes. But frustrated with the depths that human beings will stoop to when they have a religious/ideological position to preserve and protect. You are more than a troll. You are one confused ignoramus.

              1. Sounds angry to me.

                1. You just have nothing to add or any way of salvaging your claim that Top Men are able to predict the future. So, you shift to deflection.

                  Understood. I would, too, if I were so overwhelmed by the science.

                  1. Oh, I added alright. See my comment above that got your blood pressure up. You felt the need to respond to my addition, didn't you?

                    1. Hey fucktard, shouldn't you be sucking Bill Gates's cock?

      2. Your religious devotion is breathtaking.

        As a skeptic, this occurred to me. If Mann switches sides and says there is no warming do I now, in my role as ardent skeptic assert that he's wrong and that the globe is warming? If yes, consider me dubious.

    2. How can there be a cooling period with CO2 rising? How can Antarctic sea ice extent be increasing? Oh, and about those GRACE measurements...

      A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

      The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

      According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

      Ice Loss
      Storm Damage
      Tropospheric Hot Spot
      Satellite and Radiosonde Record
      Accumulated Cyclone Energy
      Palmer Drought Index
      Argo Data

      Are you right on anything?

  28. Has Mann become climate change "denier" now? Hardly.

    Whew! Disaster averted.

    Can you imagine? Scientists publish, share, and critiquing each others' works in various corners of the internet without ever leaving the office. Crazy stuff like relying on direct imperial evidence when they say that oil really does make a fantastic fuel source; "No, no brothers Koch, we're endorsing your product not because of the money or what the computer models say, but because of factually true." Climate skeptics suddenly start darting off to conferences in Davos where they try and figure out how to force people to build more windmills and openly announce, policy like "We should build more windmills because #wefuckinglovewindmills."

    Makes dogs and cats living together seem rather benign.

  29. huh. so people dont really understand how weather works? this is totally my shocked face.

  30. So wait a minute. Even after "correcting" the data, they still can't manage to massage it show the expected global warming? When will they come out and admit that the science isn't quite settled? Or at least admit that the models need more work?

  31. Dude this is gonna be really good. Wow.


  32. Had a chance to read the study. I would make a few points. One quote from the study

    " The magnitude and statistical significance of observed trends (and
    the magnitude and significance of their differences relative to model expectations) depends on the start and end dates of the intervals considered."

    And that's the point, which I stated above. The long term trend remains...up and dangerously so. You can pick 1998 as the start point, but that's just a short term trend, and that type of trend has occurred in the past 100 years, but then has gone back up again.

    You can draw a line on the graph of temperature anomalies from 1900 to any year since 1995 and the trend varies, but only slightly. And that is the speed of warming, long term. It varies from decade to decade. Keats has always will.

    You ask if the rate of change remains low, will expectations change. Yes of course they will. It's science, not a conspiracy. But nothing in the past suggests they will remain that way. In fact 2015 tells you temperatures are increasing and the study doesn't include that year.

    I would also point out that if you are looking for a study proving the long term trend is a slowing of temperature change, the above isn't it.

    1. You make your "grand" argument after all opposition leaves. Congrats on your "victory"...

      After all, if the humans keep adding more CO2 and the Earth does anything other than warm, then doesn't that mean you are wrong? And If you are wrong, how many people will die because you created a bloated one-world government dedicated to slaying this imaginary dragon?

      Also, how the heck are you going to stop China from keeping on pumping out CO2 without some sort of nuclear war (which, granted, may create nuclear winter which would stop the warming that has been going on since the little ice age)?

      Answer those and then I may deem to care.

      1. I answered the others but stop when the expletives enter the picture. Too juvenile.

        I couldn't possibly care less if you are convinced.


        1. These two posts are literally the only things you've posted today. Why wait?

          I couldn't possibly care less if you are convinced.

          Not true. You need public support in order to convince people to give up their rights.

          Also, you didn't even attempt to answer my questions.

  33. Oh dear god, Ron, you used to have a least somewhat of a conscious and a brain. What happened to you? Could you pick your cherries any more narrowly than what you just did?

    1: Why focus on the atmosphere? It is only a tiny fraction of the earth's heat capacity

    2: Why focus on the satellite measurements, which

    A: Are a highly indirect, heavily-model-dependent method of measurement
    B: Don't measure the part of the atmosphere we actually live in, unless you are a Sherpa
    C: Are now out of whack with the radiosonde measurements

    3: Why does your graph seem to stop around 2005?

    All you have done is thrown out 99.9% of the data then intentionally reported an inaccurate method of measuring the rest, while ignoring a more direct measurement that refutes your point of view. I am sorry, but you've gone off the deep end. Stay out of politics and cease voting, because your opinion is less than worthless.


    The above link rips your post to shreds, Ron. If you had one whit of honesty in your body, you'd retract it and apologize.

    1. Chad Brick|2.27.16 @ 8:27AM|#
      "Oh dear god,"

      Jam your religion up your butt.

  34. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out...
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ------------? http://www.Wage30.com

  35. then again: http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/04.....-recorded/

  36. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out...
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ------------? http://www.Wage30.com

  37. Well, winter is shorter. And, there's snow in some places where it should not happen.The temperature difference is bigger each year....

  38. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100's (if not 1000's) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:


  39. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out...
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ------------? http://www.Wage30.com

  40. I really wish that they would spend less time "updating and correcting" measured temperatures. Temperature is not a subjective thing. Once you calibrate a thermometer, then keep it away from direct sun or wind, the temperature is what it is. Commercial ships take temperature and other weather measurements every few hours, day and night, and send those measurements to the appropriate government authority. This has been going on for at least a century. And those measurements are taken by trained people using high quality, calibrated instruments. For US ships, the instruments are owned and serviced by NOAA. The readings are transmitted to NOAA, then the paper readings are mailed to them on port visits.
    Having spent my whole career carefully recording the weather conditions and supervising junior officers when they do it, I am confused as to why those measurements always need to be "adjusted and corrected". The air temperature is simply what it is, as is the water temperature. I have yet to have anyone give me a convincing explanation of why the measurements cannot be taken literally. I love objective data, and I try to base my beliefs on it. If NOAA uses a different methodology for measuring global temperatures every couple of years, They are never going to be able to demonstrate trends accurately. Especially when one is trying to explain that while the literal global temperatures as measured were higher in 1997 than in 2015, adjustments to data show a continued warming trend.

  41. Thank the temperature gods that earth acted like earth tends to do. These psychos were on the verge of completely destroying entire businesses and did proceed to cause huge amounts of capital misallocation in the transportation sector and energy sectors.

    The whole scam will never properly be debunked unless the sheep understand that the root of these outrageous assertions was always based on utter disdain for private enterprise, profitable business, and exploitation of natural resources to the benefit of people all over the globe.

    The bottom line is that the vast majority of all college professors are eminently corruptible luddites and either knowing or unknowing marxists. All of you morons should have recognized it was a trumped up crisis when politicians immediately adopted the crisis meme.

  42. yes it is tooo hot here

  43. Cop 22 In Morocco about Global warming should give more ideas to apply... Cuz Talk is cheap

  44. It's controversial because sunspot activity won't justify all the bullshit programs and government control that they desire.Doggy Dans Online Dog Trainer -- Motivational Quotes

  45. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ????? ???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.