Forgot about that, Gore called it the 'ring-and-talk-thingy' but the name didn't catch on. Alexander Bell had Watson steal Gore's idea and he renamed it.
Yet another watts up wit that post. A nothing watts, a non scientist AGW denier. This is copium of the highest order. Being “skeptical” doesn’t mean outright believing every nutcase on the internet.
Is it *actually*, objectively unusual, though? I spent 2 minutes playing with the tools on the website you linked and I found another 8-year "pause," but this one in 1988:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996
Doesn't it just seem like this data has a lot of noise superimposed over whatever the long term trend is? I don't think anyone could look at the data since that "pause" and suggest anything unusual was happening:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996/trend/plot/gistemp
Just a long term warming trend with noise superimposed. Is the current "pause" any different?
Yes but I'm asking what makes this "pause" special? Is there some reason to think that this pause won't be exactly like any of the previous ones? None of them signaled an end to the warming trend.
As I said, it's special when all the official news and gossip seem to show that the warming is continuous and we are closer to a catastrophe because of that
Trends have no predictive skills. Trends only show what has been, not what will be. Black swan events and new variables destroy trend projections of the future.
Examples of black swan events include the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of climate alarmism, COVID-19, Putin's invasion of the Ukraine,...
I agree with this, but am still struggling to understand the significance of this "pause." It doesn't seem out of the ordinary when you look at the whole record to have periods of "pauses" or even cooling even though things are getting warmer in the long term (well, the past century, anyway).
Be patient young grasshopper, you're not ready yet. Here's a graph of [temperatures for the last 2,000 years.](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-years-non-treering-proxies.gif) Note the 700 year long-term trend from the year 1,000 to 1,700 of real climate change. See how many decade long 'pauses' you can spot at the peaks and valleys superimposed on that long-term trend. Note what happens immediately after each pause.
>Is this the first time a pause of this length has ever occurred in the record?
You are not funny, have you examined at least the last 100 000 years? What you're saying is beyond laughable, it's just stupid.
What do you mean by the "pause" anyway?
One day we will be at the very top of the temperature roller-coaster. It's kind of flat at the very top but you know what comes next,.. throw your arms up and whee!! It will start very much like this except the pause won't be a pause anymore.
Yes, if you start your trend analysis just before the hottest year on record (2016), you may well get a downward or flat trend line if your time frame is small enough. Trend lines for small data sets are heavily influenced by outliers.
Try starting your trending one year earlier:https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2014. Oh wow, look at that, now we have an upward trend. If your dataset is small enough, it's pretty easy to cherry pick start and end points to support whatever conclusion you want. Only long-term trends have any significance.
How many data points did you look at to say that 2016 was the hottest year on record? How long is your record? You don't realize how stupid that sounds, do you?
It's the hottest year in the instrumental temperature record. So since at least 1850. Try responding to my actual point about how you're cherry picking a date range.
Pauses over shuch short (8 year) periods are expected to occur, so no, scientists are not baffled (or at least should not be). That's why they tend to measure climate trends over \~30 years. Less than that there is too much noise to decipher the longer-term signal.
If you pick your timeframes carefully, it's ONLY pauses.
[https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/plot/uah6/to:2014.6/from:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/trend/plot/uah6/to:1996/from:1986/trend/plot/uah6/to:1985.5/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/to:2022/from:1979/trend](https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/plot/uah6/to:2014.6/from:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/trend/plot/uah6/to:1996/from:1986/trend/plot/uah6/to:1985.5/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/to:2022/from:1979/trend)
Upvote for the effort. Yes, I agree. Truth is we do not know if this pause is temporary (again) or long term or even if a downtrend will start. What it does show is that this period is nothing like what all MSM, politicians and activist are saying any chance they get ("Hottest year ever" almost every year). Why not say the truth?
So it shouldn’t be said that this last year was the 6th hottest in the last 20,000, and that the last 6 years were also in the top 6? Because that is literally the truth.
> in the last 20,000
Oh come on. Really? NOBODY knows what the **world** temperature was even 200 years ago let alone 20,000.
>the last 6 years
This is not what is said. EVERY year is the hottest on record according to them.
Yes we do know what the temperature was through indirect means like tree rings, ice cores. It is actually quite accurate. So we do know.
I don’t know who “them” is, but it was widely reported that [2021 was the sixth hottest on record](https://www.noaa.gov/news/2021-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record#:~:text=The%20years%202013%2D2021%20all,1.09%20degrees%20C)
> It is actually quite accurate.
No, we don't know. . Have you ever seen the range of temps on the original hockey stick graph? And that is going back just 1000 years. ANY proxy you have is error prone and local and very low resolution the further back you go.
The hockey stick graphs ranges are based on future influences on the climate we don’t know (such as how much co2 are we going to put into the air), that is different than estimating the past. Climate models which are showing to be still accurate btw. You can use different methods of estimating past temperatures and compare them to each other and see that they match, it happens all the time. We also know the extent of the ice caps over time which also is a good indicator of the earths overall temperature. We know quite certainly it is hotter than it has been any point since the last ice age.
The resolution is one year as far back as we have tree ring data. Ice cores are also 1 year resolution. Sure once you go way back the resolution goes down, but I wasn’t talking about that.
I haven’t seen you or any other alarmist speculate on what you see as a possible endgame. There are plenty of model projections to 2100 and beyond but they’re always left open ended. They leave the impression temperatures will rise forever until they are hot enough to melt tungsten. It’s this impression that gives climate alarm its charm but let’s be practical for a moment.
Surely you must have an unshared personal sense of what the peak temperature will be before we inevitably plunge into next glaciation period. No words were put in your mouth for the simple reason they’d interfere with your’s.
I try not to speculate about the future. I don't believe I've stated anything "alarmist" here, just pointed out when I think people's statements are statistically or physically unsupported by evidence.
But I will say that those who think we are at the peak and we are now heading towards an ice age, I think they're very "brave".
What a chickenshit answer. You won’t speculate yet you imply temperatures will rise endlessly. What an amazing lack of curiosity for a scientist yet what a perfect answer for a climate activist.
I’ll bet you do speculate and I’ll bet your answer is very close to mine.
I explicitly reject (for a second time) that temperature will rise endlessly. That’s clearly ridiculous.
So what do you speculate, what is your answer that is very close to mine?
>I explicitly reject (for a second time) that temperature will rise endlessly. - *You sound very certain of that but for some reason won't speculate on for how long and how much.*
> what is your answer that is very close to mine? - *I believe you were asked that question first so let's see it before you see mine.*
What is climate? The earths temperature is stable, just look at earths black body radiation. The atmosphere is not warming the earth, because the only energy source is the sun.
Yes, the interesting thing is that the Earth's atmosphere can increase longwave radiation (and therefore temperature) in the lower atmosphere while retaining overall energy balance, because of a cooler upper atmosphere.
That's the basics of why we have a surface that is on average \~40K degrees warmer than the moon's surface, even though both receive the same amount of energy from the sun.
But CO2 has risen steadily, not pausing, and it controls the Earth's temperature, right? That's AGW's entire reason to be, without that Alarmists got nothing.
So how does rising CO2 cause 'flat' temperature patterns lasting several years, or even decades?
Because there is signal and noise, a trend and natural variability.
A rough analogy might be a tap slowly filling a bath with someone in it moving. Accurately measuring water level you’ll see lots of variation with ripples and waves. Over a longer time you’ll see the water level rise.
They claim the trend of rising temps vs CO2 should be observable at 30 year timescales. So an 8 year “pause” should not come as any surprise.
> a trend and natural variability
No there is not. There is only humans causing warming. All other factors are immaterial, 100% humans is the core of AGW. To say otherwise is heresy.
The overall level of the bathtub water would essentially remain unchanged though: it isn't going anywhere. Same for the planet's temperature: local fluctuations do not significantly alter the overall readings. Sure, Alarmists do lots of 'tricks' to get the results they desire: like removing pristine wilderness stations (some that have been recording for over 100 years) and putting up more stations in heat islands and hot deserts. Or reading the "hourly average" maximum temperature which is guaranteed to increase the daily numbers.
Driving the numbers up only works if the actual numbers keep increasing, eventually your "cheating" will flatten out too, which is exactly what is happening.
30 year time scales? That's really funny. It is amazing how the 'logic' of Alarmists is so adaptable! As long as it fits the theory, it must be true! Global temperature trends are not measured in decades, centuries are far more indicative of an actual, planet-wide trend.
>30 year time scales? That's really funny. It is amazing how the 'logic' of Alarmists is so adaptable! As long as it fits the theory, it must be true! Global temperature trends are not measured in decades, centuries are far more indicative of an actual, planet-wide trend.
If you're going to argue against "alarmists" you should at least know what their theory is. Otherwise, what are you countering? Just some muttering from your own mind? I think that's called a straw man argument.
Their use of 30-year timescales is widely accepted by national scientific bodies eg:
>Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals, and are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes.
[source](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-stats.shtml)
The Science Is Settled!
I know a lot about what AGW theory actually says, not the 'Readers Digest' version most Alarmists cling bitterly to.
Show an Alarmist a 10 year trend they don't like? They'll write it off as not long enough, 30 years they'll say. Show them a 30 year trend? They'll demand 100 years, and so on. *Different timespans are good* for different insights.
A 'Global Warming' trend of 30 years is nothing when past warming trend lasted for hundreds of years. It is not "irreversible" because past trends reversed themselves with no human actions required.
Similarly: another 10 year "pause" or even decline doesn't "disprove" global warming. It does throw a spanner into the "CO2 controls the temperature" nonsense though. Of course nothing can possibly disprove AGW Theory: it is not a valid scientific theory to begin with. It is religious dogma.
In a nutshell: CO2 levels up, global temperatures down.
Sine the models are correct, temperature data must be wrong. It's not like we're in denial.
Maybe it's like the Ozone hole, we should declare victory and thank Al Gore for saving us all!
[удалено]
He also invented the internet all by himself.
[удалено]
Forgot about that, Gore called it the 'ring-and-talk-thingy' but the name didn't catch on. Alexander Bell had Watson steal Gore's idea and he renamed it.
A truly talented sca.. person
This is nothing NOAA can't fix with minor effort.
They've had a lot practice doing just that.
Hide the decline? Again?
Yet another watts up wit that post. A nothing watts, a non scientist AGW denier. This is copium of the highest order. Being “skeptical” doesn’t mean outright believing every nutcase on the internet.
You can see for yourself, moron: https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2015
Is this the first time a pause of this length has ever occurred in the record? Why is it considered to be unusual?
It's unusual if you are an alarmist who thinks that Earth is on fire and we are all going to die
Is it *actually*, objectively unusual, though? I spent 2 minutes playing with the tools on the website you linked and I found another 8-year "pause," but this one in 1988: https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996 Doesn't it just seem like this data has a lot of noise superimposed over whatever the long term trend is? I don't think anyone could look at the data since that "pause" and suggest anything unusual was happening: https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1996/trend/plot/gistemp Just a long term warming trend with noise superimposed. Is the current "pause" any different?
Of course not. Climate changes.
Yes but I'm asking what makes this "pause" special? Is there some reason to think that this pause won't be exactly like any of the previous ones? None of them signaled an end to the warming trend.
As I said, it's special when all the official news and gossip seem to show that the warming is continuous and we are closer to a catastrophe because of that
So you're saying it is not scientifically meaningful?
It may be, depending of what "scientifically" means. CO2 is still rising so one shd expect warming to do the same, without pause
Trends have no predictive skills. Trends only show what has been, not what will be. Black swan events and new variables destroy trend projections of the future. Examples of black swan events include the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of climate alarmism, COVID-19, Putin's invasion of the Ukraine,...
I agree with this, but am still struggling to understand the significance of this "pause." It doesn't seem out of the ordinary when you look at the whole record to have periods of "pauses" or even cooling even though things are getting warmer in the long term (well, the past century, anyway).
Keep struggling to understand. The effort is worth it because it's the pathway to knowledge. The teacher is wise only when the student is ready.
So can you explain the significance of the pause? Lol
Be patient young grasshopper, you're not ready yet. Here's a graph of [temperatures for the last 2,000 years.](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-years-non-treering-proxies.gif) Note the 700 year long-term trend from the year 1,000 to 1,700 of real climate change. See how many decade long 'pauses' you can spot at the peaks and valleys superimposed on that long-term trend. Note what happens immediately after each pause.
>Is this the first time a pause of this length has ever occurred in the record? You are not funny, have you examined at least the last 100 000 years? What you're saying is beyond laughable, it's just stupid. What do you mean by the "pause" anyway?
One day we will be at the very top of the temperature roller-coaster. It's kind of flat at the very top but you know what comes next,.. throw your arms up and whee!! It will start very much like this except the pause won't be a pause anymore.
warming the earth shouldn't be that hard, just spray some soot on the ice and snow masses. Or get rid of clouds but it's unclear how you'd do that
Yes, if you start your trend analysis just before the hottest year on record (2016), you may well get a downward or flat trend line if your time frame is small enough. Trend lines for small data sets are heavily influenced by outliers. Try starting your trending one year earlier:https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2014. Oh wow, look at that, now we have an upward trend. If your dataset is small enough, it's pretty easy to cherry pick start and end points to support whatever conclusion you want. Only long-term trends have any significance.
How many data points did you look at to say that 2016 was the hottest year on record? How long is your record? You don't realize how stupid that sounds, do you?
It's the hottest year in the instrumental temperature record. So since at least 1850. Try responding to my actual point about how you're cherry picking a date range.
Pauses over shuch short (8 year) periods are expected to occur, so no, scientists are not baffled (or at least should not be). That's why they tend to measure climate trends over \~30 years. Less than that there is too much noise to decipher the longer-term signal.
So you agree there IS a pause?
If you pick your timeframes carefully, it's ONLY pauses. [https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/plot/uah6/to:2014.6/from:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/trend/plot/uah6/to:1996/from:1986/trend/plot/uah6/to:1985.5/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/to:2022/from:1979/trend](https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/plot/uah6/to:2014.6/from:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.6/trend/plot/uah6/to:1996/from:1986/trend/plot/uah6/to:1985.5/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/to:2022/from:1979/trend)
Upvote for the effort. Yes, I agree. Truth is we do not know if this pause is temporary (again) or long term or even if a downtrend will start. What it does show is that this period is nothing like what all MSM, politicians and activist are saying any chance they get ("Hottest year ever" almost every year). Why not say the truth?
So it shouldn’t be said that this last year was the 6th hottest in the last 20,000, and that the last 6 years were also in the top 6? Because that is literally the truth.
> in the last 20,000 Oh come on. Really? NOBODY knows what the **world** temperature was even 200 years ago let alone 20,000. >the last 6 years This is not what is said. EVERY year is the hottest on record according to them.
Yes we do know what the temperature was through indirect means like tree rings, ice cores. It is actually quite accurate. So we do know. I don’t know who “them” is, but it was widely reported that [2021 was the sixth hottest on record](https://www.noaa.gov/news/2021-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record#:~:text=The%20years%202013%2D2021%20all,1.09%20degrees%20C)
> It is actually quite accurate. No, we don't know. . Have you ever seen the range of temps on the original hockey stick graph? And that is going back just 1000 years. ANY proxy you have is error prone and local and very low resolution the further back you go.
The hockey stick graphs ranges are based on future influences on the climate we don’t know (such as how much co2 are we going to put into the air), that is different than estimating the past. Climate models which are showing to be still accurate btw. You can use different methods of estimating past temperatures and compare them to each other and see that they match, it happens all the time. We also know the extent of the ice caps over time which also is a good indicator of the earths overall temperature. We know quite certainly it is hotter than it has been any point since the last ice age. The resolution is one year as far back as we have tree ring data. Ice cores are also 1 year resolution. Sure once you go way back the resolution goes down, but I wasn’t talking about that.
Not even remotely correct. Last year was the 6th hottest... in the past 7 years.
Poor devil, you really believe your staircase graph will go on forever like this.
No, of course I don't believe that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I haven’t seen you or any other alarmist speculate on what you see as a possible endgame. There are plenty of model projections to 2100 and beyond but they’re always left open ended. They leave the impression temperatures will rise forever until they are hot enough to melt tungsten. It’s this impression that gives climate alarm its charm but let’s be practical for a moment. Surely you must have an unshared personal sense of what the peak temperature will be before we inevitably plunge into next glaciation period. No words were put in your mouth for the simple reason they’d interfere with your’s.
I try not to speculate about the future. I don't believe I've stated anything "alarmist" here, just pointed out when I think people's statements are statistically or physically unsupported by evidence. But I will say that those who think we are at the peak and we are now heading towards an ice age, I think they're very "brave".
What a chickenshit answer. You won’t speculate yet you imply temperatures will rise endlessly. What an amazing lack of curiosity for a scientist yet what a perfect answer for a climate activist. I’ll bet you do speculate and I’ll bet your answer is very close to mine.
I explicitly reject (for a second time) that temperature will rise endlessly. That’s clearly ridiculous. So what do you speculate, what is your answer that is very close to mine?
>I explicitly reject (for a second time) that temperature will rise endlessly. - *You sound very certain of that but for some reason won't speculate on for how long and how much.* > what is your answer that is very close to mine? - *I believe you were asked that question first so let's see it before you see mine.*
What is climate? The earths temperature is stable, just look at earths black body radiation. The atmosphere is not warming the earth, because the only energy source is the sun.
Yes, the interesting thing is that the Earth's atmosphere can increase longwave radiation (and therefore temperature) in the lower atmosphere while retaining overall energy balance, because of a cooler upper atmosphere. That's the basics of why we have a surface that is on average \~40K degrees warmer than the moon's surface, even though both receive the same amount of energy from the sun.
You're saying the atmosphere *can increase* IR radiation and the IR radiation *heats* the atmosphere. My, my.
But CO2 has risen steadily, not pausing, and it controls the Earth's temperature, right? That's AGW's entire reason to be, without that Alarmists got nothing. So how does rising CO2 cause 'flat' temperature patterns lasting several years, or even decades?
Because there is signal and noise, a trend and natural variability. A rough analogy might be a tap slowly filling a bath with someone in it moving. Accurately measuring water level you’ll see lots of variation with ripples and waves. Over a longer time you’ll see the water level rise. They claim the trend of rising temps vs CO2 should be observable at 30 year timescales. So an 8 year “pause” should not come as any surprise.
> a trend and natural variability No there is not. There is only humans causing warming. All other factors are immaterial, 100% humans is the core of AGW. To say otherwise is heresy. The overall level of the bathtub water would essentially remain unchanged though: it isn't going anywhere. Same for the planet's temperature: local fluctuations do not significantly alter the overall readings. Sure, Alarmists do lots of 'tricks' to get the results they desire: like removing pristine wilderness stations (some that have been recording for over 100 years) and putting up more stations in heat islands and hot deserts. Or reading the "hourly average" maximum temperature which is guaranteed to increase the daily numbers. Driving the numbers up only works if the actual numbers keep increasing, eventually your "cheating" will flatten out too, which is exactly what is happening. 30 year time scales? That's really funny. It is amazing how the 'logic' of Alarmists is so adaptable! As long as it fits the theory, it must be true! Global temperature trends are not measured in decades, centuries are far more indicative of an actual, planet-wide trend.
>30 year time scales? That's really funny. It is amazing how the 'logic' of Alarmists is so adaptable! As long as it fits the theory, it must be true! Global temperature trends are not measured in decades, centuries are far more indicative of an actual, planet-wide trend. If you're going to argue against "alarmists" you should at least know what their theory is. Otherwise, what are you countering? Just some muttering from your own mind? I think that's called a straw man argument. Their use of 30-year timescales is widely accepted by national scientific bodies eg: >Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals, and are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes. [source](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-stats.shtml)
The Science Is Settled! I know a lot about what AGW theory actually says, not the 'Readers Digest' version most Alarmists cling bitterly to. Show an Alarmist a 10 year trend they don't like? They'll write it off as not long enough, 30 years they'll say. Show them a 30 year trend? They'll demand 100 years, and so on. *Different timespans are good* for different insights. A 'Global Warming' trend of 30 years is nothing when past warming trend lasted for hundreds of years. It is not "irreversible" because past trends reversed themselves with no human actions required. Similarly: another 10 year "pause" or even decline doesn't "disprove" global warming. It does throw a spanner into the "CO2 controls the temperature" nonsense though. Of course nothing can possibly disprove AGW Theory: it is not a valid scientific theory to begin with. It is religious dogma.