Sentences with phrase «climate warming pause»

«The climate warming pause goes AWOL (or not),» American Thinker, June 4, 2015.

Articles: The climate warming pause goes AWOL (or not)

Not exact matches

Climate skeptics often make precisely this claim, citing the warming pause as evidence.

Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was also an author on the paper, said this research expanded on past work, including his own research, that pointed to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation as a factor in a warming slowdown by finding a mechanism behind how the Pacific Ocean was able to store enough heat to produce a pause in surface warming.

Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of random fluctuations arising from chaotic processes in the climate system.

However, in light of our substantiation of the effects of «grand solar minima» upon past global climates, it could be speculated that the current pausing of «Global Warming», which is frequently referenced by those sceptical of climate projections by the IPCC, might relate at least in part to a countervailing effect of reduced solar activity, as shown in the recent sunspot cycle.»

A supposed pause in global warming that has been fodder for climate change doubters never really existed, researchers reported in 2015.

Some climate change deniers have taken encouragement from the pause, saying they show warming predictions are flawed, but Mann, a co-author on the study, notes that «there have been various explanations for why [the slowdown is happening], none of which involve climate models being fundamentally wrong.»

«What this study addresses is what's better described as a false pause, or slowdown,» rather than a hiatus in warming, says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

A favourite climate contrarian talking point is that there was a pause or «hiatus» in warming from 1998 until the early part of the current decade.

The warming pause has been «exploited by climate skeptics to refute global warming,» the paper states.

Evidence of the «pause» in surface warming «has sparked a lively scientific and public debate», says the Nature Climate Change editorial.

Updated, 7:48 p.m. On time scales from decades to months, fluctuations in ocean conditions present persistent challenges to climate scientists (see the «pause» in warming) and weather forecasters.

By inventing the therm» pause» you guys are delaying the inevitable:» global» warming doesn't exist / H2O is regulating the climate, not CO2!The truth exist; truth is much more important than million believers: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

It isn't a pause in global warming trend (GT Warming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having swarming trend (GT Warming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having sWarming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having stopped.

When ocean patterns had some scientists in 2008 projecting a protected pause in warming, I wrote a relevant piece entitled «Can Climate Campaigns Withstand a Cooling Test?»

It's a superb examination of what's known, and unknown, about what James Hansen, Susan Solomon and other climate scientists have described as a pause or hiatus in warming.

Climate Change Non-Consensus: IPCC Scientist Now Sees Global Warming Pause Extending To 30 Yrs notrickszone.com

Most scientists attribute this «pause» in warming to natural climate cycles that have a cooling effect on the planet, especially ocean oscillation cycles.

The next three climate ads misstate the science of climate change, incorrectly asserting rainfall and droughts are getting worse, that there has been no pause in rising temperatures, and suggesting carbon dioxide has historically caused climate change when the fact is warming has preceded rising carbon - dioxide levels in the past.

As soon as the warming paused and kept pausing and they had to change the name of their religion from Global Warming to Climate Change, we KNEW they would eventually backpeddle on CO2 and herewarming paused and kept pausing and they had to change the name of their religion from Global Warming to Climate Change, we KNEW they would eventually backpeddle on CO2 and hereWarming to Climate Change, we KNEW they would eventually backpeddle on CO2 and here it is.

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

The argument is based on both the surface warming «pause» and the premise of low climate sensitivity.

The much embarrassing «Pause» continues to ignore the predictions of the wrong - way IPCC and government - funded climate «scientists» - you know, the «experts» who have been long predicting end - of - the - world global warming since the late 80's.

The study — «Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus» — was published by Science magazine in June 2015 and pushed back against assertions from other research groups that found a pause in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012, which goes against climate change advocates» insistence that the earth's temperature has been on a steady incline for decades.

A pause would, at least in part, discredit arguments for global warming and lend credence to skeptics who argue the climate goes through a natural cycle of changes.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

The two - decade global - warming pause, which no late 1990s climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate's confident predictions for the climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate's confident predictions for the Climate's confident predictions for the future.

-LSB-...] warming pause, the epic failure of climate models, and the growing popularity of skeptic blogs, Hockey Stick inventor Michael Mann still tries to pull rank and tell policymakers what to do because, after -LSB-...]

While the report made a strong case for human - caused climate change, most media coverage focused on the question of whether there has been a «pause» in global warming.

The previous Real Climate post has a nauseatingly smug description of how there is no pause — warming continues unabated since 1998!

Focusing on the «pause» is mainly significant in context of the comparison between climate model projections and surface temperatures... Attempts to spin 2014 as a possible «warmest year» is exactly that: spin designed to influence the Lima deliberations....

Seized on by climate sceptics as proof the whole thing is a hoax, the global warming «pause» has many possible explanations.

As a meteorologist with 24 years of operational experience, including having attended climate seminars at NCAR back in the day, I can laughingly say anyone trying to make a point that there is no warming because of a «pause» is out to lunch scientifically in a number of ways.

Whether it is the unanimous opinion by scientists regarding the 18 - year «global warming» pause; or the last 9 years for the complete lack of major hurricanes; or the inexplicable and surprisingly thick Antarctic sea ice; or the boring global sea level rise that is a tiny fraction of coastal - swamping magnitude; or food crops exploding with record production; or multiple other climate signals - it is now blatantly obvious the current edition of the AGW hypothesis is highly suspect.

The recent pause in global warming (1): What do observations of the climate system tell us?

Though the paper's findings are not controversial — few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years — they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist «consensus», which has long sought to deny the «Pause's» existence.

While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause.

To be perfectly clear: Talk of a «hiatus» or a «pause» in global warming has been a contrarian talking point for about a decade, and there is clear evidence that this framing was picked up by the media (see Max Boykoff's article in Nature Climate Change last year) and has now been picked up by some climate scieClimate Change last year) and has now been picked up by some climate scieclimate scientists.

To be charitable (and to overlook all the cherry - picking and decline - hiding), the turn - of - the - century climate alarmists who failed to foresee the current 17 - year warming pause might reasonably plead that it was an «unknown unknown» - something they didn't know they didn't know.

Over the past year, the myth of the global warming «pause» has become a favorite among climate contrarians.

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed «climate sensitivity» — how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.

Most so - called climate skeptics and an increasing number of so - called consensus scientists including now the luminary James Hansen too have acknowledged the so - called pause in global warming.

Yet a purported global warming «pause» (more aptly named the «faux pause») is often used as an excuse by those who oppose taking action to curb climate change.

As the 17 - year warming «pause» suggests, in climate science nobody's 100 per cent right; it's a field of «complexity and nuance», and somewhere in the grey blur people pick different points to pitch their tents.

If you have no doubt that ACO2 warms the climate, then warming will not pause if you keep pumping ACO2 into the atmosphere.

Half of the warming in the 20th century occurred before CO2 was a problem, yet no on in the scientific community has a reason for this, and the pause has continued with an increase of 8 % of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is still no credible explanation for it, and it actually took the climate science community over a decade to admit there was one.

In fact, they argue that the warming has «stopped» or «paused» — which is an impossibility if you think that adding ACO2 necessarily warms the climate.

UPDATE: I finished writing this post and published it at my blog Climate Observations about the same time that Don Easterbrook's post Cause of «the pause» in global warming was published at WattsUpWithThat.

But if you say that the warming has «paused» or «stopped,» and then if you also say that you think that ACO2 warms the climate, then you are being illogical, and you are a «skeptic» not a skeptic.