The Pause Is Back, It Never Really Went Away

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
July 22, 2016



By Paul Homewood





​
Pronouncements of its death were premature – the pause has never gone away! Despite temperatures peaking in February, just above the 1998 peak, satellite measurements show that temperature trends have only risen by a statistically insignificant 0.002C/year since 1998. Pause deniers always object to comparisons with 1998. However, as we are now comparing two massive El Nino years, that objection no longer carries any weight. That is not all. The strong La Nina event in 1999/2000 effectively cancelled out the 1998 El Nino, as far as trends go, as the Met Office explained in their 2013 paper, “The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes”:
.
​
The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.
.
It remains to be seen whether we get a similar La Nina in the next 12 months, but even a return to average temperatures will see the above trend drop close to zero.

​
One question that is often raised is why temperatures are still close to record levels, even though El Nino conditions have largely disappeared. The answer is that there is always a time lag between ENSO changes, and the resultant impact on atmospheric temperatures, generally agreed to be between three and six months. Below is a chart showing the timing of ENSO and temperature changes between January 1997 and December 1999:

​
​

The MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) shows how the El Nino peaked in September 1997, whilst RSS temperatures did not peak until the following April.. Similarly, the subsequent La Nina bottomed out in February 1999, with temperatures not following suit until June 1999.

A similar chart for this year shows a five month between lag between the two peaks. It seems likely that the recent transition towards neutral ENSO conditions won’t be reflected in atmospheric temperatures until the autumn. Beyond that, it is crystal ball time!



One more thing to note. The MEI is actually a bimonthly assessment. What I show as June, for instance, is actually May/June. ESRL, who operate the MEI state in their latest report, on 3rd July

Positive SST anomalies cover much of the off-equatorial tropical Pacific, but cold anomalies are present right along the Equator east of 160W, as seen in the latest weekly SST map. This remains one of the more clear-cut cases where the bimonthly assessment in the MEI sense cannot keep up with the faster changes underway now.

It is therefore highly likely that, although they still show what they call a moderate El Nino, in reality the ENSO conditions in June were almost certainly in neutral territory. gertainly, as far as NOAA’s weekly ENSO update now believes that is exactly where we are:




http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/the-pause-is-back-it-never-went-away/
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I expect the anti-Pause bigots will ignore this one.
Click to expand...

They always do, the RSS and UAH satellite datasets are in close agreement and show virtually no warming in the last two decades. That is the unvarnished truth but how can you scare people shitless with that or justify new taxes and overarching new powers for the EPA with that?

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
 
Milagro said:
They always do, the RSS and UAH satellite datasets are in close agreement and show virtually no warming in the last two decades. That is the unvarnished truth but how can you scare people shitless with that or justify new taxes and overarching new powers for the EPA with that?

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
Click to expand...

But they're pro-science lol!
 
Racists Aren't Human said:
There never was a pause. It's a myth.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are conflating definitions. The pause, or hiatus, is most definitely real. There was a slowdown in the rate at which the world was warming. Right back to the rate of warming since the last ice age. It's all discussed in the IPCC AR5.

Climate models overestimated the anthropogenic component. Why is that so hard for you warmers to understand?
 
tinfoil said:
I suspect you are conflating definitions. The pause, or hiatus, is most definitely real. There was a slowdown in the rate at which the world was warming. Right back to the rate of warming since the last ice age. It's all discussed in the IPCC AR5.

Climate models overestimated the anthropogenic component. Why is that so hard for you warmers to understand?
Click to expand...

Watermark is just being a prick, as usual!

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
 
tinfoil said:
I suspect you are conflating definitions. The pause, or hiatus, is most definitely real. There was a slowdown in the rate at which the world was warming. Right back to the rate of warming since the last ice age. It's all discussed in the IPCC AR5.

Climate models overestimated the anthropogenic component. Why is that so hard for you warmers to understand?
Click to expand...

Because they so want it.
It's as simple as using Massively massaged land based temps vs untouched satellite data. They choose the cooked books. They have to to support the myth of co2 being the boogyman. It never was never could be.
It it's just the giant ball of thermonuclear energy that we've been relying on for heat forever how can taxes be justified ?
 
tinfoil said:
I suspect you are conflating definitions. The pause, or hiatus, is most definitely real. There was a slowdown in the rate at which the world was warming. Right back to the rate of warming since the last ice age. It's all discussed in the IPCC AR5.

Climate models overestimated the anthropogenic component. Why is that so hard for you warmers to understand?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of understanding so much as ideology. Ideologically, the left is irrevocably wed the idea that man is influencing the global climate in a bad way.

In their minds they 'can't' be wrong.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
It's not a matter of understanding so much as ideology. Ideologically, the left is irrevocably wed the idea that man is influencing the global climate in a bad way.

In their minds they 'can't' be wrong.
Click to expand...

It is not just hubris, although that is a big factor, it is mire about political control which is why so much of the hard Left have latched onto it. I truly wish that Richard Feynman was still around as he would definitely be shooting down this version of the Cargo Cult.

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
 
Clock Town said:
ok tom, i'll believe you over NASA and basically all scientists. thanks.
Click to expand...

So who do you think owns the satellites that provide the data to the RSS and UAH datasets? I might also point out the scathing 2012 letter sent to Charles Bolden by 49 former NASA scientists, top admin and astronauts about James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:


  • “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
  • “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
  • “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
Click to expand...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top