pause hiatus bak
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pause txt 2 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new spin on cooling bs?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see bak (big blanks/graf here?)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">forbes james taylor (heartland) 2013</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cites BS murdoch</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omg: IPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri is pictured next to an unidentified Arab official during a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures. IPCC computer models have predicted twice as much warming as has occurred in the real world, and virtually none of the IPCC computer models can replicate or account for the recent lack of global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rather than acknowledge that perhaps IPCC overshot its predictions in past reports, Pachauri doubled down on denialism, claiming there has been no slowdown in the pace of global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase),” Pachauri told BBC News Monday</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pachauri’s astonishing denialism not only undercuts IPCC credibility, it also contradicts his own words earlier this year in an interview with the Australian. “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,” the Australian’s Graham Lloyd reported in February after interviewing Pachauri.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Pachauri and the IPCC bureaucracy double down on denial, some IPCC scientists are acknowledging the scientific truth. IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch, a climate scientist and professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg, acknowledged the ongoing temperature plateau in a June interview with der Spiegel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch told der Spiegel in a June 2013 interview. Storch said the IPCC will have tone down its climate models unless warming quickly and rapidly accelerates ”According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase,” Storch explained.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A cynic may point out that presenting objective scientific evidence was never the goal of the IPCC and global warming alarmists. Instead, it can be correctly noted, the goal is to scare people into implementing the energy restrictions and wealth redistribution prescribed as a cure for the mythical global warming crisis. As prominent global warming scientist/activist Steven Schneider advised:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For IPCC chair Raj Pachauri, there is no balance. There is merely denialist propaganda that he hopes will blind people to the fact that global warming has, at a bare minimum, slowed down dramatically during recent years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The problem for Pachauri and the IPCC is the IPCC’s own scientists, such as Hans von Storch, directly contradict Pachauri’s denialism. And it is not just scientists pointing out Pachaui’s denialism. Even the IPCC’s reliably sympathetic media allies are unwilling to run with Pachauri’s whopper about no recent slowdown in global warming. For example, here are a few recent headlines from some of the most alarmist-friendly media outlets in the world:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Researching global warming’s pause,” reads a BBC News headline.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“A cooler Pacific may be behind recent pause in global warming,” reads a National Public Radio headline.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Why has global warming paused?” asks a Christian Science Monitor headline.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What to make of a climate-change plateau,” reads a New York Times headline.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Global warming has ‘paused’ because of natural causes but will continue to rise, scientists claim,” reads a UK Daily Mail headline.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To be sure, these reliably activist media outlets are not abandoning their catastrophic global warming agenda, but even they are forced to acknowledge what objective scientific evidence shows and what IPCC chair Raj Pachauri denies; global temperatures have plateaued for more than a decade and there has been, at a bare minimum, a pronounced recent slowdown in global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are falling into the same trap that discredited Al Gore. Exaggerating the pace and impacts of global warming may provide some short-term propaganda value, but these tall tales will ultimately backfire. People are not stupid. Al Gore may have brought belief in a global warming crisis to new heights following his Hollywood movie production An Inconvenient Truth, but it took an informed public mere months to discover Al Gore and his global warming whoppers were nothing more than the latest incarnation of Joe Isuzu. Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are foolishly drag racing down the same deceptive path. One cannot watch this propaganda train wreck unfold without expectations that Pachauri will soon offer a mini-pony with every copy of the IPCC’s newest report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IPCC chair Raj Pachauri may want us to deny objective scientific facts, but the IPCC’s own scientists, the general public and even Pachauri’s reliable media allies know better.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/judicial-watch-lawsuit-seeks-obama-white-house-records-controversial-global-warming/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> former scientist at the NOAA has exposed a shoddy report on global warming. Judicial Watch is suing to learn more.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">following allegations of impropriety over the handling of a controversial climate change report, a government watchdog group now wants to know whether there was any collaboration between the report’s lead author and a key Obama adviser. On March 27, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking “all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The FOIA specifically requests correspondence between Tom Karl, the former head of the climate-data program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and John Holdren, the director of Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Holdren is from that species of Baby Boomer global catastrophists who make changing predictions each decade about how we will all die. He also happens to be the science guy who had the president’s ear for eight years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Holdren’s buddy, Tom Karl, authored a report in 2015 attempting to disprove the hiatus in global warming that had been widely acknowledged by many scientific groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The warming pause threatened to undermine the justification for a costly climate-change pact that was being negotiated at the time: How could world leaders commit trillions in tax dollars to stop global warming if it wasn’t actually happening?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Karl’s report came to the rescue just months before the Paris Climate Conference. In announcing his findings, Karl said the “new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.” How convenient. His analysis was eagerly accepted by the international science community, but others were leery about its timing; the House Science Committee has been leading an inquiry into the report for nearly two years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But a retired top official at NOAA has now confirmed suspicions about the veracity of Karl’s research and about whether politics — not science — were at play. In February, John Bates, the former head of NOAA’s climate-data archive, wrote a lengthy exposé detailing misconduct at NOAA related to the report. The allegations included using inappropriately “corrected” datasets, violating agency protocol on data review, and failing to archive the data. In the most damning allegation, Bates said: “In every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets . . . we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.” (You can read more about Bates’s allegations here and a subsequent smear campaign by the scientific establishment here.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It was more of a political document than a scientific document,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told me. “People need to know how the [climate] alarmists have taken over agencies like NOAA and NASA. This is about trying to get the truth out.” Judicial Watch also filed a separate lawsuit against NOAA in 2015 attempting to get the datasets used in Karl’s paper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s plenty of reason to suspect collaboration between Karl and Holdren. Both are professionally invested in anthropogenic global warming and have advanced their careers promoting a catastrophic view of humanity’s fate due to our carbon-fueled rape of Mother Nature. In 2010, Holdren appointed Karl to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, which oversees how 13 federal agencies “advance climate science and improve the understanding of how global change is impacting society, both today and into the future.” In a review for Karl’s 2009 book, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Holdren says he hopes the book will “make people think about specific legislative proposals, and the need to move ahead, after many years of dithering and delay.” (In his book, Karl states: “Observations show the warming of the planet is unequivocal. . . . Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than the last century.”)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both Karl and Holdren understood the stakes of the Paris climate conference, a last-ditch effort to forceworld leaders to impose drastic measures that would allegedly ease climate change. In an interview with National Geographic while attending the event, Holdren said the climate pact was needed because “it is urgent that the nations of the world act now, both to reduce their emissions and to increase their preparedness and resilience against ongoing climate change.” He believes that the world should be completely decarbonized by the end of the century, a wholly ridiculous, untenable, and pointless idea. But then again, this is the same guy who thought we would all be dead by the start of the 21st century because of one ecocatastrophe or another. When we managed to survive, he said carbon-induced famine would kill 1 billion people by 2020. (I guess it would no fun to calculate how many billions of people are fed every day thanks to carbon.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It might take months or even years, according to Fitton, to find out whether Karl and Holdren colluded to push a dubious but favorable climate report before the Paris confab: “It depends on how fast the administration can turn it around. The default position of the bureaucracy is always secrecy.” Regardless, Fitton said, the climate-change movement is suffering from serious problems. “They’ve lost their credibility. The public is starting to see this as a scam. That’s why the language of the climate alarmists has been intensified.” [CLIMATEGATE?]I’ll bet career suicide was never in the mix of catastrophic ends for the climate movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">— Julie Kelly is a writer in Orland Park, Ill.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">actually legit </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">univ houston energy fellow ret industry guy?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2019/03/11/the-global-warming-hiatus-making-a-mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill/#3714ce822be4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx graf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New Allegations Against NOAA Scientists — And Why They’re Incorrect</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 10, 2017 By Lauren Kurtz</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Judicial Watch</b>, a conservative group, has used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to sue for the privileged email correspondence of nine climate scientists employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). On January 27, 2017, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) filed a brief in the District of Columbia federal District Court urging the court to protect the communications between these scientists.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why Do These Emails Matter?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2013, a leaked draft of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report stated that the rate of global warming had slowed between 1998 and 2012. Though the final report stated that “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” climate contrarians latched onto the idea of a “pause” in warming to bolster their position: If global warming has stopped, there is no need to curb fossil fuel use or take any other action to combat climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The hiatus was rebutted in 2015 when Thomas Karl and his colleagues at NOAA published a paper in Science based on updated, more accurate data that demonstrated that there was no pause in global warming.</b> In fact, warming from 2000 to 2015 was at least as great if not greater than that of the last half of the 20th century.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other researchers have corroborated Karl et al.’s conclusions. Most recently, a 2017 Science Advances study by Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, validated Karl et al.’s findings using independent data from satellites, buoys and free-floating Argo floats, and reached the same conclusions about the rate of global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way show no no detectable sign of a “pause” in warming through to the present. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al.) NOAA temperature record is only available through the end of 2014.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way show no detectable sign of a “pause” in warming through to the present. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al.) NOAA temperature record is only available through the end of 2014.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Soon after Karl et al. published their study, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology — who disputes the scientific consensus on climate change — subpoenaed the scientists’ documents and communications. He alleged that NOAA had readjusted historical temperature readings to suit the Obama administration’s political agenda, that the scientists had engaged in “suspicious” behavior, and that this had “broad national implications.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NOAA supplied some documents to Smith, but refused to turn over the scientists’ confidential email correspondence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In late 2015, Judicial Watch sued for the scientists’ emails under the Freedom of Information Act, a law designed to ensure transparency in government. Judicial Watch states it “is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The controversy over the Karl et al. study flared up again in early February 2017 when the Daily Mail published an article by David Rose — who has often inaccurately written about climate science — based on a blog post by retired NOAA scientist John Bates, who maintained that the study authors failed to disclose critical information about their data. Rose claimed that the authors exaggerated the rate of global warming and that the study was rushed into publication to sway the Paris Climate Accords. (Incidentally, Bates was administratively admonished and relieved of a supervisory position at NOAA at a time when Karl was in a leadership role; Bates denies that his complaints were driven by any animus.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a February 7 House Science committee hearing, “Making the Environmental Protection Agency Great Again,” Smith again attacked NOAA, accusing it of “falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” Conservative media outlets have seized on the Daily Mail story, using it as ammunition in their fight against climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bates, however, has since said in an interview with E&E News, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Irish Climate and Research Unit’s Peter Thorne, who worked on the underlying material for the Karl study but left NOAA before it was published, defended the study. “At no point was any pressure brought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices. It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF’s Involvement in the Case</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF filed the brief in support of the NOAA scientists because we’re committed to safeguarding the confidentiality of communications between researchers. FOIA requests for scientists’ emails may ostensibly be made in order to verify research, but they can result in hindering research or intimidating scientists into downplaying risks or not publicly discussing their research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These FOIA requests usually seek preliminary drafts, private critiques from other researchers, and the personal documents and email correspondence of scientists rather than the data, methodologies, or research results of scientific studies, which might help clarify or evaluate the science itself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FOIA contains nine exemptions designed to protect certain categories of government records from indiscriminate release. Under Exemption 5, there is a deliberative process privilege for federal employees, including federal scientists, which allows them to withhold deliberative communications within or between federal agencies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The purpose of this privilege is to encourage frank discussions between colleagues, protect against premature disclosure of proposed actions before they are finalized, and prevent public confusion that might result from the disclosure of proposals that were discarded and had no relation to the final decision.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What Happens Next?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judicial Watch is scheduled to file its first legal brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by February 20. Additional briefs from the plaintiff and defendant are due in March and April; the NOAA scientists’ emails are being defended by the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce (NOAA’s parent agency).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF is committed to protecting the scientific endeavor, especially defending scientists from legal attacks; we will continue to participate in and monitor this lawsuit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">— Renee Cho is a blogger for the Earth Institute at Columbia University.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-hiatus-pause-never-happened-studies-explain-climate-change-risbey-oreskes-mann</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[graphs]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report, scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it, and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn't exist, but in reality the global warming "pause" or "hiatus" never occurred.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That is the conclusion of a pair of studies, published Tuesday in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, based on statistical reassessments of a recent 10-year period that appeared at the time to evince a flattened warming curve.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These are the latest of several assessments to caution that the hiatus theory has no real significance either for climate science or for science-based policy. Even so, they seem unlikely to stamp out the discussion, which has become a deeply embedded meme in some circles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tweet by study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Lack of Arctic Data</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The notion of a pause in warming from approximately 1998 to 2012, was fueled in part by incomplete data and erroneous projections that have since been corrected, the studies conclude.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's long been obvious that if there had been any blip in the trends it was temporary. The years that followed have hit new temperature records.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And new evidence has made clear why some were fooled.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists know, for example, that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than the planet as a whole, but there weren't enough temperature observations from the Arctic in the early 2000s to accurately measure the changes that were occurring there. As a result, data sets on global temperature tended to omit the Arctic until recently, when researchers came up with a better way to extrapolate data from the region.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We simply didn't have all the information available at the time," Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher at the University of Bristol and lead author of the climate modeling report said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chart: What's Driving Climate Change?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Natural phenomena, including increased volcanic activity and decreased solar activity, also masked human-caused warming during the late '90s and early 2000s, seemingly deviating from what climate models had projected, Lewandowsky said. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When scientists noticed a difference between observed temperatures and temperatures projected in climate models, they dug deeper into the science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"When things don't look quite how you expect, you dive into it," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "People looked into it, and it turned out to be nothing."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate Policy Opponents Seized on 'the Pause'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015, researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were some of the first to reach the conclusion that there hadn't been any pause or hiatus in global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Their findings came under attack by U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), then chairman of the House Science Committee, who subpoenaed the agency for "all documents and communications" related to their research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"He found something that was within his purview that he could then use to champion this nonsense idea that scientists were cooking the books or being politically swayed, when in fact he was the person doing all the political swaying," Schmidt said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The current studies, coming on the heels of the recent special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the fourth National Climate Assessment, "put to rest" any lingering notion of a pause in global warming, said Brenda Ekwurzel, the Union of Concerned Scientists' director of climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It's very clear that the climate is warming faster," Ekwurzel said. "Climate change is real, it's due to us primarily, and we have a choice about the future emissions that continue to contribute to warming global mean surface temperature."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https:/<b>/theconversation.</b>com/<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">global-warming-hiatus-is-the-climate-change-myth-that-refuses-to-die</span>-108524</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The record-breaking, El Niño-driven global temperatures of 2016 have given climate change deniers a new trope. Why, they ask, hasn’t it since got even hotter?</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to a recent US government report on the impact of climate change, a spokesperson for the science-denying American Enterprise Institute think-tank claimed that “we just had […] the biggest drop in global temperatures that we have had since the 1980s, the biggest in the last 100 years.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These claims are blatantly false: the past two years were two of the three hottest on record, and the drop in temperature from 2016 to 2018 was less than, say, the drop from 1998 (a previous record hot year) to 2000. But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the time, the alleged pause was cited by many people sceptical about the science of climate change as a reason not to act to reduce greenhouse pollution. US senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz frequently argued that this lack of warming undermined dire predictions by scientists about where we’re heading.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, drawing conclusions on short-term trends is ill-advised because what matters to climate change is the decade-to-decade increase in temperatures rather than fluctuations in warming rate over a few years. Indeed, if short periods were suitable for drawing strong conclusions, climate scientists should perhaps now be talking about a “surge” in global warming since 2011, as shown in this figure:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global temperature observations compared to climate models. Climate-disrupting volcanoes are shown at the bottom, and the purported hiatus period is shaded. 2018 values based on year to date (YTD). NASA; Berkeley Earth; various climate models., Author provided</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “pause” or “hiatus” in warming of the early 21st century is not just a talking point of think-tanks with radical political agendas. It also features in the scientific literature, including in the most recent report of the </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and more than 200 peer-reviewed articles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research we recently published in Environmental Research Letters addresses two questions about the putative “pause”: first, is there compelling evidence in the temperature data alone of something unusual happening at the start of the 21st century? Second, did the rise in temperature lag behind projections by climate models?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In both cases the answer is “no”, but the reasons are interesting.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reconstructing a historical temperature record from instruments designed for other purposes, such as weather forecasting, is not always easy. Several problems have affected temperature estimates for the period since 2000. The first of these was the fact that uneven geographical distribution of weather stations can influence the apparent rate of warming. Other factors include changes in the instruments used to measure ocean temperatures. Most of these factors were known at the time and reported in the scientific literature, but because the magnitudes of the effects were unknown, users of temperature data (from science journalists to IPCC authors) were in a bind when interpreting their results</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.cato.org/blog/more-data-fiddling-another-warming-pause-about-start</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">january 19, 2018 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More Data Fiddling—Is Another Warming “Pause” About to Start?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By Patrick J. Michaels</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yesterday Jim Hansen, now with Columbia University, and several of his colleagues released their summary of 2017 global temperatures. Their history, published by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has constantly been evolving in ways that make the early years colder and the later years hot. I recently posted on how this can happen, and the differences between these modified datasets and those determined objectively (i.e. without human meddling).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For a couple years I have been pointing out (along with Judith Curry and others) that the latest fad—which puts a lot of warming in recent data—is to extend high‐latitude land weather station data far out over the Arctic Ocean. Hansen’s crew takes stations north of 64⁰ latitude and extends them an astounding 1200 kilometers into the ocean.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This, plainly speaking, is a violation of one of the most fundamental principles of thermodynamics, which is that when matter is changing its state (from, say, solid to liquid), a stirred fluid will remain at “freezing” until it is all liquid, whereupon warming will commence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This also applies in the Arctic, where the fluid is often stirred by strong winds. So if, say, Resolute, one of the northernmost land stations, is 50⁰F, and the Arctic is mixed water‐ice (it always is), that 50 degrees will be extended out 1200 kilometers where the air‐sea boundary temperature has to be around 30⁰F, the freezing point of seawater up there.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hansen et al. did pay some attention to this, noting this extension, which they normally apply to their data, was responsible for making 2017 the second‐warmest year in their record. If they “only” extended 250km (still dicey), it would drop their “global” temperatures by a tenth of a degree, which would send the year down a rank. The result of all of this is that the big “spike” at the end of their record is in no small part due to the 1200km extension that turns thermodynamics on its head.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s another interesting pronouncement in the NASA announcement; many people have noted that the sun is a bit cool in recent years, and that it continues to trend slightly downward. The changes in its radiance are probably good for a tenth of a degree (C) of surface temperature or so. Hansen et al. use this to provide covering fire should warming stall out yet again:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The significance of this will all fall out in the next year or so. If temperatures head back down all the way to their pre‐El Niño levels, that will ultimately bring back the post‐1996 “pause.” We’re going to guess they are going to remain a couple of tenths of a degree above that, based on what happened after the big one in 1998, where they settled a small amount above the pre‐El Niño of the earlier 1990s.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If the recent warming rate (adjusting for El Niño) continues, we’ll hear that it is doing so “despite” the sun. Given that one year (2018) can have little influence on a recent trendline, that copy may already have been written!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All of this begs the question: Hansen notes in his release that the warming rate since 1970 has been fairly constant, about 0.17⁰C per decade, and didn’t note that the average of the UN’s climate models say it should be about twice that now. More lukewarming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Topics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Energy and Environment</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate global hiatus pause srch ggl 720</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate.gov</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 4, 2018 - (top) Based on NOAA data, global average surface temperature (orange ... climate experts described the episode as a “pause” or “hiatus” in the ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by R Lindsey - Related articles</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why did Earth's surface temperature stop rising in the past ...www.climate.gov › news-features › climate-qa › why-d...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 1, 2018 - Check out our latest Q&A on this topic: Did global warming stop in 1998? ... significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012. ... contributing to the global warming hiatus and driving other climate trends ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New ...insideclimatenews.org</span> › news › global-warming-hiatus-...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 18, 2018 - Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn't hold up to statistical ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global warming 'hiatus' is the climate change myth that ...theconversation.com › global-warming-hiatus-is-the-cli...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 19, 2018 - At the time, the alleged pause was cited by many people sceptical about the science of climate change as a reason not to act to reduce ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The global climate continues to warm rapidly - Skeptical Science skepticalscience.com › ipcc-global-warming-pause</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The same problem applies to the 'pause' (or 'hiatus' or better yet, 'speed bump') assertion. It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More Data Fiddling—Is Another Warming “Pause” About to ...www<b>.cato</b>.org › blog › more-data-fiddling-another-war...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 19, 2018 - If they “only” extended 250km (still dicey), it would drop their “global” temperatures by a ... it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a 'global warming hiatus'.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Global Warming Hiatus: Making A Mountain Out Of A ...ww<b>w.forbes</b>.com › sites › uhenergy › 2019/03/11 › the...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mar 11, 2019 - </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The so-called global warming hiatus, a period of a dozen years or so at ... Let's start with the bottom line: you can't judge climate over a 15-year ... Some papers delve into semantic argument about what constitutes a pause.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global warming didn't pause -- researchers disentangle 'hiatus'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.eurekalert.org › pub_releases › pifc-gwd121818</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 18, 2018 - Global warming didn't pause -- researchers disentangle 'hiatus' confusion. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Detailed look at the global warming 'hiatus' again confirms that ...www.latimes.com › science › sciencenow › la-sci-sn-glob...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So whether you call it the 'hiatus' or the 'pause,' both are arguably ... The observed global mean ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 3, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Searches related to climate global hiatus pause</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global warming hiatus wikipedia</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global warming pause debunked</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate hiatus is real</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">average global temperature last 100 years</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">average global temperature by year</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no significant and prolonged temperature changes since 1997</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">average global temperature last 10 years</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">earth cooling last two years</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>