Ravishing Rattie. I have no objection to other people awarding +1 accolades, just to when one particular person so obviouly does it with malicious intent. But +100, isn't that a teeny weeny profligate? Or is it a delayed response to numerous thoughtful and decisive posts from the awardee?

Brace yourselves, the Pause returns, accompanied by furious Denial by Climate Scientists.

Ha, if you rely on the Daily Mail and David Rose, you deserve all you get. Basically a massive cherry-pick, what he calls 'global' is in fact an obsolete RSS land-only dataset, pretty useless for looking at ENSO. The drop does not exist in any other genuinely global data which show no change in the trend.

Already eviscerated here and here.

These comments at ATTP are apropos :-

What’s the right term for this sort of nonsense? Cartoon physics? Third-grade analysis? Complete, utter BS? Not even wrong? And yet, no doubt, droves of scientifically illiterate dimwits are nodding their heads in agreement.

Rose and the DailyMail are nothing but a despicable bunch. Hatred and misinformation, that’s their business model. On a positive note, it was never easier to rip their bullshit apart and rub the real science in their denier faces. While they might feel the momentum is on their side, the facts have never been more in contradiction to their ideological beliefs. As I said on Twitter, it’s time to call these bigots out! That’s true for science deniers as it is for racists, xenophobes, misogynists … you name it. We have literally millions of pieces of evidence to know that these guys aren’t in for the truth. We know they are deliberate liars.

Although I couldn’t give a lesser shit, here are some clues for the lunatics:

– looking at land data only doesn’t tell you anything about ENSO responses

– identifying circulation anomalies is key to say something about temperature evolution

– clearly, RSS drop is due to Eurasian cold in response to low sea ice/high geopotential over the Arctic (no such drop in UAH, GISS, BEST, HadCRUT4-CW)

– can rebound quick as seen last winter (well, in fact every winter, because weather!)

PhilClarke.

So pleased that you've finally come around to our point of view

"what he calls 'global' is in fact an OBSOLETE RSS land-only dataset, PRETTY USELESS....." [my emphasis]

Haven't we been saying that for some time? But you don't particularly like the satellite data.

Our dear friend aTTP* seems royally p...ed off, doesn't he.

*Why do I often think of horrid mouthwashes and nasty knee abrasions in my distant youth when I see this acronym?

It is obsolete because he uses version 3 of the RSS Lower Trop. data. RSS have moved most of their datasets to v4, but not yet TLT, about to be deprecated as it shows problems with orbital drift, it is useless for the application Rose is attempting as it is land-only and he really needs a global dataset.

The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution.

I have no great aversion to the satellite data, as long as one remembers what it is actually measuring, uncertainties, adjustments and limitations. But that is true of any dataset.

It seems that temperature data is only acceptable if it has passed through the hot sticky fingers of climate scientists first.

If Trump scraps US Taxpayer funding of Climate Science and the pause continues, he might establish that there never was a Chinese hoax at all, but it was all done in English, which will make it easier for the FBI to investigate.

Mark Hodgson

Rather, I point out that in a period of increasing CO2 emissions, if the AGW scare theory was correct, one would not have expected there to be such a long pause or hiatus>

Straw man alert.

You oversimplify. In the short term There are many factors affecting the rate of warming. Some have a warming effect, some have a cooling effect and they operate on different timescales.

A volcano like Pinatubo produces a pulse of sulphur and dust which increases albedo. For a few years warming slows, stops or even reverses. Then the atmosphere clears and conditions return to the status quo ante.

ENSO varies the balance between ocean and atmosphere. El Nino produces warm sea surface and atmosphere readings, and a warm spike in the record. La Nina produces a cool spike. Even weather can produce slightly warmer and cooler years.

The key point is that these processes are stochastic. They are not regular. Together they can produce a warm pulse like the years around 1998 or a flatter period like the latter 2000s. Look at the period from 1940 to 1970. There was a massive warming pulse in the late 1930s and early 1940s which lifted temperatures way above the long term trend, followed by a 25 year pause while the long term trend caught up. A statistician would cause such pauses reversion to the trend.

I have not yet mentioned CO2. This is driving the long term trend and, if none of the other variables existed, would produce a smooth rising curve. Since they do exist the record is noisy, with short term variation above and below the long term trend. It is very tempting to find a short term change and use it to pretend that it shows the trend has changed.

2016, driven by the last El Nino, is likely to have a GISS annual average close to 1.0C. 2017 will probably be closer to the long term trend, perhaps 0.82C. Look for a rush of "global warming is dead" stories in early 2018. :-)

Radical Rodent's traffic analogy is good. The estimated journey time on your satnav is the long term average. Traffic lights, speed limits etc cause short term pauses in your journey, but have little effect on your final arrival time.

EM. Strange that the period known as the hiatus is approaching the duration of temperature rise that initiated and nurtured the global warming scares, which was preceded by an episode of temperature stability or decline (depends whose doing the massage). Doesn't it worry you that since 1945 (when fossil fuel use reached proportions capable of significantly modifying the atmospheric amounts of the trace gas CO2) most years exhibit stability or decline in temperatures superimposed over a long turn gentle rise from the depths of the LIA that had no connection with CO2.
Obviously you do not, but why not?

EM, so what caused the LIA and MWP?

You accused me of not knowing about the difference between short term trends, and now you are doing the same thing.

Interesting article, highlighting the fact that the IPCC never had any science when created by the United Nations. Perhaps EM could raise the issue about IR Heat Seeking Missiles that is now public access.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/the-politicization-of-climate-science-is-not-a-recent-phenomenon/

It is interesting to note that there was NO evidence in 1988, and that it has had to be found/fabricated since.

In Legal Terms, this is how people get fitted up for crimes they never committed, by Police over anxious for an arrest, and to get somebody behind bars. Sometimes the Police may have been right to get a particular somebody behind bars, they just lacked the right evidence.

ACK

Doesn't it worry you that since 1945 (when fossil fuel use reached proportions capable of significantly modifying the atmospheric amounts of the trace gas CO2) most years exhibit stability or decline in temperatures superimposed over a long turn gentle rise from the depths of the LIA that had no connection with CO2.
Obviously you do not, but why not?

Warming is not spontaneous. You assume the "rise from the depths of the LIA that has no connection with CO2". If that were so, we would be able to measure another source of energy capable of producing the observed warming.

Since the temperature continues its long term warming trend as predicted by the radiative physics of CO2, and no alternative has been measured, I will continue to worry about CO2, but not about short term variation.

Golf Charlie

My explaination? Before the Industrial Revolution the long term trend over 5000 years was cooling, as the Milankovich cycles gradually pushed us towards the next glacial period. That is why the MWP cooled into the LIA, with a little help from vulcanism.

What is your explaination?

Golf Charlie

Perhaps you should read a little history.

Golf Charlie

Perhaps you should read a little history.

Nov 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM | Entropic man

That is a very selective summary. It does not mention the 1970s Ice Age Scare, that Climate Scientists don't want people to remember. Is your version only meant for people too young to remember? I can remember it, though I was still at school, and not even a teenager. Younger minds are more easily impressionable and scared by silly science. Like a fool, I did believe in Mann's Hockey Stick once.

Climate Science has tried and failed to rewrite climate history to match Mann's Hockey Stick. If Climate Science had been honest, and denounced Mann years ago, it would not now be facing such a big loss of funding and credibility.

How many "Climate Science Experts" supported and endorsed Gergis and her mangled attempt to fix the Hockey Stick, in print and in the blogosphere? For Myron Ebell, it should help him ascertain how some US Taxpayers money can be saved.

For those who endorsed Mann AND Gergis AND the 97% Consensus, it really is time they got a proper job.

EM. I think you deceive yourself.

"Since the temperature continues its long term warming trend as predicted by the radiative physics of CO2, and no alternative has been measured".

But for most of that temperature rise there was no corresponding rise in CO2. Also if there are shorter term hiati or actual temperature downturns then there must be, during those episodes, mechanisms opposing the effects of the "radiative physics of CO2" that must be of equal or greater strength. What are these mechanisms?, you've already stated that you know of nothing that has been measured capable of causing the warming but for the all powerful "radiative physics of CO2" , so you cannot conceive of anything of similar strength to cause the downward temperature fluctuations. If you believe that CO2 is the b-all and end-all of climate change you're stuck in a logical paradox.

It's a poor logical construct.

EM. Can you inform a poor geologist where all this volcanism occurred that helped tip the MWP into the LIA. I must have somehow missed it in my studies. Since you are so knowledgeable perhaps you can inform me if the current amount of vulcanism is high or low and what effect this will have on the climate of, say, the next fifty years.

BTW are you sure volcanos do have climate effects?, Willis isn't.

Radical Rodent, please remember that Climate Scientists decided manmade CO2 was to blame for Global Warming. This was decided without evidence, and all other possible causes were also eliminated, without evidence.

Climate Science has always relied on double standards around "evidence". They need none to prove anything. To disprove Climate Scientists, the very highest standards are required.

Without taxpayer funding, all their professionals may do back to mis-selling dubious insurance policies, without much retraining.

ACK

The four main natural forcings are orbital changes, volcanos, the Sun and plate tectonics.

The four main human forcings are land use, aerosols, ozone and CO2.

All eight are measurable and their effect calculated. Seven of the eight are producing a neutral or cooling effect.

Only CO2 is driving warming, at a rate which agrees with theory and in a manner consistent with radiative physics.

If you have an alternative, you presumably have evidence. Remember what we are looking for. Your hypothetical forcing should be putting 0.7W/m2 into the system, adding 3*10^22Joules/year mostly in ocean heat content and latent heat from ice melt, and producing about 0.18C/decade warming.

You were a scientist; you know the rules. If you want to introduce a novel hypothetical forcing the onus is on you to supply a mechanism, evidence and numbers.

Regarding volcanoes and the LIA there is a report here.

The abstract is here.

Nov 29, 2016 at 11:16 AM | Phil Clarke

Don't you recall how your heroes self eviscerated themselves over Gergis?

Radical rodent

Extra unknown forcings would show in the energy budget, like unexpected lodgements or withdrawals from your bank account.

As I said to ACK, if you want invoke an unknown forcing convention requires you to provide the evidence for it. Without evidence they are just fantasy forcings.

EM, climate science has gone too far, for long enough without evidence.

Golf Charlie

We have discussed this before. There is a LOT of evidence for AGW. The problem is your refusal to accept any of it.

EM, no, you have lectured, repeating the same old failed and unsubstantiated dogma. Why should I make the mistake of trusting you, having made the mistake of trusting Mann?

If you are angry about Climate Science's imminent fall from grace, blame Mann and your own gullibility.

I have been suggesting that someone from within Climate Science try to salvage the good bits of Climate Science, before it all gets thrown out, but you refuse to accept advice.

Gavin Schmidt has flown a kamikaze mission against Trump, but crashed and burned without hitting his target.