Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

Can you tell us why scientists are struggling to explain the 17 year 10 month hiatus in warming?

 

The only people struggling are the ones who think that a pause disproves global warming.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

I've already explained how short term variability can periodically mask long term trends.

 

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade yet they keep telling us it’s worse than expected. The reason for this is that natural variability can count for almost all of the temperature increase since the low of the Little Ice Age, long before CO2 became the cause celeb. Now they are trying to say the models are correct but the pause is natural variability, when they did not predict that to begin with.

 

the point is that couldn't make an argument to backup what you said

 

The Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)


This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:



But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:



Kevin Trenberth - Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

Actually it is not popularized by Lord Monckton. It is simply that observational science has not reflected the modelling.

 

the point is that evidence shows monckton and you are wrong

 

You really need to check your sources, or at least post links so others can check for you.

Back in 1981, in one of the first global warming projections, James Hansen predicted a warming trend of 0.17°C per decade, which happens to be exactly what we've measured since then.



Even the IPCC has been consistently accurate, with the current warming trend of 0.17°C per decade well within all projected ranges.



Care to try again?

 

Tell that to the climate scientists that are trying to explain the hiatus.

Here is a recent paper on it.

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...weprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf

 

there isn't one

 

Well then, better contact the scientists trying to explain it so they can quit.

 

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

 

they're explaining that there isn't one, because there isn't

 

LOL, only on the CAGW advocacy sites. I suggest you read some actual reports other than propaganda.

 

what a joke, big oil is who's putting out propaganda

 

Still relying on liberal advocacy? Widen your reading to actual papers that are trying to explain the hiatus instead of advocacy sites.

Global Warming Pause Due To Pacific Says Trenberth

 

no, i'm referring to scientific evidence

 

Yeah, see, like I said, even Trenberth is trying to explain away the hiatus. Problem is, his hypothesis is just a hypothesis with not enough data to prove anything. More of the same.

 

he explained that there isn't one

“Global warming has not stopped" – Kevin Trenberth

 

By trying to explain the pause in warming. Really, you are not that blind are you?

 

as the link you posted explains, there is no pause in warming

 

Because it is hiding in the oceans. Right. No proof of that is there? There is also other numerous papers out trying to explain the pause. Which one is right? The fact is that it is obvious there is a pause.

Here you go. Here is a model even you could use.

 

Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but the uncertainties remain too large to rationalize e.g., the apparent “pause” in warming. – Wunsch and Heimbach

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/heatcontentchange_26dec2013_ph.pdf

 

there's more to the earth than it's atmosphere

and don't forget what the link you posted, said

“Global warming has not stopped"

 

There's more to the earth than a climate model.

Don't forget that is one man's opinion.

The hiatus is here and scientists are scrambling to try and explain it. I mean, it's just got to be there, right?