"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Monday, September 15, 2014

"Settled Science" now has 52 different excuses for the pause.

Graph from Roy Spencer

Activists masquerading as scientists are desperate to keep the scam of catastrophic global warming alive and the list of excuses for the failure of the globe to warm is now 52 and rising . Each excuse is dutifully trotted out in the press as the answer without any reference to the other mostly mutually exclusive excuses.


Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming(compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)

RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming
An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
28) ENSO
33) NAO & PDO
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to haveminimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”


No comments:

Post a Comment