Karl et al Debunked

It seems the so-called "pause buster" paper has been busted itself. A fitting end to politically motivated headline chasing disguised as research.

Hiatus in Global Warming
New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure

. . . No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“. . . .

Models and observations don’t even begin to match.
The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses
Christopher Hedemann, Thorsten Mauritsen, Johann Jungclaus & Jochem Marotzke
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2017) doi:10.1038/nclimate3274
Received 12 July 2016 Accepted 17 March 2017 Published online 17 April 2017
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated1. This surface-warming hiatus is attributed by some studies to model errors in external forcing2, 3, 4, while others point to heat rearrangements in the ocean5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10caused by internal variability, the timing of which cannot be predicted by the models1. However, observational analyses disagree about which ocean region is responsible11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html
(paywalled)

The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research
(paywalled)
From the Introduction:
The surface temperature of the Earth warmed more slowly over the period 1998–2012 than could be expected by examining either most model projections or the long-term warming trend1. Even though some studies now attribute the deviation from the long-term trend to observational biases17, 18, the gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science. . . .

Also of note, see the offset as designated by the two colored X’s in Figure 1:

Models and observations don’t even begin to match.

Jack Hays said:

Also of note, see the offset as designated by the two colored X’s in Figure 1:

Models and observations don’t even begin to match.

Click to expand...

For the fifteen years 1998-2012, the IPCC's CMIP5 ensemble mean trend was about 0.21C/dec while the stated observed warming was about 0.05C/decade.

That's obviously a very large discrepancy, but it's worth noting that over the period 1998 to the present the surface temperature trend has been around 0.13C/dec (HadCRUT) to 0.17C/dec (GISS). In other words over the longer, El Nino to El Nino period we now have data for (using NOAA's mid-range 0.153C/dec trend) and estimating a ~0.44C model spread from AR5 Figure 9.8 below, the observed trend in the last 19 years has fallen slightly below the middle 50% of the ensemble spread: (~0.22 model mean trend - 0.153 observed) * 1.9 decades = ~0.127C below the model mean; slightly more than a quarter.

AR5 Figure 9.8:

By implication, potentially as many as fifteen or twenty percent of individual model runs would simulate similar or smaller warming trends over the period than observed: Ideally that number should be around forty to sixty percent (ie, observations are in the middle of the range), so obviously our ability to accurately model decadal natural variation still has plenty of room for improvement. But that is a far cry from "don't even begin to match" even over that relatively short period - and over longer periods modeling of global surface temperatures is remarkably accurate.

Mithrae said:

For the fifteen years 1998-2012, the IPCC's CMIP5 ensemble mean trend was about 0.21C/dec while the stated observed warming was about 0.05C/decade.

That's obviously a very large discrepancy, but it's worth noting that over the period 1998 to the present the surface temperature trend has been around 0.13C/dec (HadCRUT) to 0.17C/dec (GISS). In other words over the longer, El Nino to El Nino period we now have data for (using NOAA's mid-range 0.153C/dec trend) and estimating a ~0.44C model spread from AR5 Figure 9.8 below, the observed trend in the last 19 years has fallen slightly below the middle 50% of the ensemble spread: (~0.22 model mean trend - 0.153 observed) * 1.9 decades = ~0.127C below the model mean; slightly more than a quarter.

AR5 Figure 9.8:

Spoiler

By implication, potentially as many as fifteen or twenty percent of individual model runs would simulate similar or smaller warming trends over the period than observed: Ideally that number should be around forty to sixty percent (ie, observations are in the middle of the range), so obviously our ability to accurately model decadal natural variation still has plenty of room for improvement. But that is a far cry from "don't even begin to match" even over that relatively short period - and over longer periods modeling of global surface temperatures is remarkably accurate.

Click to expand...

As Abraham Lincoln once said in another context, "One war at a time, gentlemen." The point here is that Karl et al has been exposed as the political charlatanry that it is.

Jack Hays said:

As Abraham Lincoln once said in another context, "One war at a time, gentlemen." The point here is that Karl et al has been exposed as the political charlatanry that it is.

Click to expand...

Could you quote where the paper you've cited mentions Karl et al?

Mithrae said:

Could you quote where the paper you've cited mentions Karl et al?

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to.

Jack Hays said:

It doesn't need to.

Click to expand...

I see.

The Pause reconfirmed, again.

Climate News
[h=1]NEW STUDY CONFIRMS: THE WARMING ‘PAUSE’ IS REAL AND REVEALING[/h]by Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing. It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate…

Obvious falsehood, again.

You started a thread asserting that Karl et al had been debunked, when the paper doesn't even mention Karl et al, let alone 'debunking' the inhomogeneities in sea surface temperature data it recognized and the proposed correction for them. This obvious falsehood was bad enough; at least you could claim it as Karl et al ignored and with cherub-faced innocence pretend that your verbal sleight of hand wasn't really intended to have that wildly misleading effect :roll:

However this paper (Medhaug et al) explicitly cites Karl & co and at least three other papers as legitimate scientific perspectives casting doubt on the claim of any 10+ year 'hiatus,' yet with brazen dishonesty you are pretending that it "reconfirms" a pause.

From the abstract:

From the conclusions:


Edit:
For my two cents, since Hansen, Sato and Ruedy in 2013 noted that "The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing," that has pretty much always summed up my perspective. Even now - after switching to NOAA's updated ERSST4 sea surface data in the latter half of 2015 - the GISS temperature record still clearly suggests an ~8 year 'pause' from ~2001-05 to 2009-13:


However the brazen dishonesty exhibited in this thread and on WUWT does not aid our understanding of climatic variations in any way, it merely suggests an ideologically-driven agenda apparently driving contrarian propaganda.

Mithrae said:

You started a thread asserting that Karl et al had been debunked, when the paper doesn't even mention Karl et al, let alone 'debunking' the inhomogeneities in sea surface temperature data it recognized and the proposed correction for them. This obvious falsehood was bad enough; at least you could claim it as Karl et al ignored and with cherub-faced innocence pretend that your verbal sleight of hand wasn't really intended to have that wildly misleading effect :roll:

Click to expand...

Actually on re-reading the thread, even that would-be cover story is not available for your falsehood: Your declaration about that paper "that Karl et al has been exposed as the political charlatanry that it is" really is not open to re-interpretation, it's just a lie, plain and simple.

Mithrae said:

Obvious falsehood, again.

You started a thread asserting that Karl et al had been debunked, when the paper doesn't even mention Karl et al, let alone 'debunking' the inhomogeneities in sea surface temperature data it recognized and the proposed correction for them. This obvious falsehood was bad enough; at least you could claim it as Karl et al ignored and with cherub-faced innocence pretend that your verbal sleight of hand wasn't really intended to have that wildly misleading effect . . . .

However this paper (Medhaug et al) explicitly cites Karl & co and at least three other papers as legitimate scientific perspectives casting doubt on the claim of any 10+ year 'hiatus,' yet with brazen dishonesty you are pretending that it "reconfirms" a pause.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Actually on re-reading the thread, even that would-be cover story is not available for your falsehood: Your declaration about that paper "that Karl et al has been exposed as the political charlatanry that it is" really is not open to re-interpretation, it's just a lie, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Tsk tsk. Karl et al has indeed been debunked, and you are wildly off base. I shall graciously ignore your insults because I infer you are desperate. From the link in #11:

The authors of this recent paper delicately tread a line between the two opposing camps saying, on the one hand, that both sides have a point and their particular methods of analysis are understandable. But on the other hand they make it clear that there is a real event that needs studying.
As someone who has paid close attention to the ‘pause’ for almost a decade I am perhaps more attentive than most when it comes to a retelling of the history of the idea and the observations.
The authors say the pause started with claims from outside the scientific community. Well, yes and no. It was tentatively suggested in 2006 and 2007 by climate sceptics many of whom were experienced scientists and quite capable of reading a graph and calculating statistics. A decade after it was raised, every time the ‘pause’ is debated it is a tribute to those who first noticed it and faced harsh criticism. It was the sceptics who noticed the ‘pause,’ and in doing so made a valuable contribution to science. For years it was only analysed and discussed on the blogosphere before journals took notice.
There is nothing new in their recent paper or that hasn’t been discussed by the GWPF. Perhaps that will give pause for thought for some who see battle lines drawn between pause supporters (sceptics) and pause busters (scientists).
What the authors miss, with their three definitions of the pause, is a simple fact we have often pointed out. Look at HadCRUT4 from 2001 (after the 1999-2000 El Nino/La Nina event) until 2014 (before the start of the recent El Nino event) and you will see the temperature is flat. Apart from the recent El Nino there has been no global increase since 2001, even though there have been El Ninos and La Ninas in that period. Now that’s what I call a pause.
I will leave it to the reader to calculate the trend, and the error of the trend for the same period using other global surface temperature data sets. The duration of the pause is about half of the nominal 30-year basic climate assessment period, so if it resumes in the next few years it may become the dominant climate event of recent times. The pause ended not because of gradual global warming but because of a natural weather event whose temporary increased rate of global warming was far too large to be anthropogenic. This didn’t stop some from claiming we had entered a period of catastrophic global warming. . . .

Jack Hays said:

Tsk tsk. Karl et al has indeed been debunked, and you are wildly off base. I shall graciously ignore your insults because I infer you are desperate.

Click to expand...

Again: Show me where Hedemann et al - the paper cited in your post #1, your post #2, your post #3, your post #4 and your post #5 - even mentions Karl et al.

If you cannot do so, the honest thing would be to acknowledge that your claims that it "debunked" Karl et al and 'exposed it as political charlatanry' are clear and obvious falsehoods. I let it slide initially, as anyone reading the thread can see, but your decision to resurrect your earlier lie with yet another, even more brazen one really is beyond the pale.

Of the two academic papers cited in this thread, one does not mention Karl et al at all and the second one cites it and three other papers as legitimate scientific perspectives casting doubt on claims of a 10+ year 'hiatus.'

Jack Hays said:

As someone who has paid close attention to the ‘pause’ for almost a decade I am perhaps more attentive than most when it comes to a retelling of the history of the idea and the observations.
The authors say the pause started with claims from outside the scientific community. Well, yes and no. It was tentatively suggested in 2006 and 2007 by climate sceptics many of whom were experienced scientists and quite capable of reading a graph and calculating statistics. A decade after it was raised, every time the ‘pause’ is debated it is a tribute to those who first noticed it and faced harsh criticism. It was the sceptics who noticed the ‘pause,’ and in doing so made a valuable contribution to science. For years it was only analysed and discussed on the blogosphere before journals took notice.

Click to expand...

Tentatively suggested :lol: A tribute to them :lamo What we have here is the old million monkeys or broken clock phenomenon. Far from being a product of careful objective consideration of all available evidence, even as early as the mid 1990s leading contrarians like Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz were asserting that the world had been cooling for the past 18 years. By the late 90s, the big El Nino event became the talking point de jour, anything to distract from the fact of ongoing warming and the ongoing failures of contrarian rhetoric.

As I've shown in the post above - and again below with the older HadCRUT3 data - as of 2005/06 there was nothing whatsoever unusual about the progress of global warming: Global temperatures were rising over that statistically insignificant period at the same rate as the equivalent period before it. And that's even starting from the big 1998 El Nino, which of course had always been reviled as a terrible place to end a trend, but obviously was now an important point to start one (just as 2015/2016 will be in a few more years).

This alleged contrarian rhetoric from 2005/06 was even less justified than their rhetoric in the 1990s, and the happenstance by which there eventuated a 'pause' from ~2003 to ~2011 is pure coincidence which Dr. Whiteface is attempting to claim credit for. He himself asserts that the pause by his measure began in 2001... but is praising people who after a mere four years asserted that there was some significant change in trend? Desperate stuff.

Jack Hays said:

What the authors miss, with their three definitions of the pause, is a simple fact we have often pointed out. Look at HadCRUT4 from 2001 (after the 1999-2000 El Nino/La Nina event) until 2014 (before the start of the recent El Nino event) and you will see the temperature is flat. Apart from the recent El Nino there has been no global increase since 2001, even though there have been El Ninos and La Ninas in that period. Now that’s what I call a pause.

Click to expand...

True to form, this is yet another blatant falsehood. The HadCRUT4 trend from 2001 to 2014 is clearly positive. ENSO conditions for 2014 were negative on average, yet it was the hottest year on record at the time; marginally exceeding the previous record 2010 (El Nino year), and the record before that 2005 (El Nino year) and the record before that 1998 (biggest El Nino in a century).

The HadCRUT4 trend from 2001 to 2013 is close to zero: But if Whitehouse were honest enough to acknowledge that distinction he would be acknowledging A) that even in the HadCRUT data the 'pause' ended well before the 2015/16 El Nino and B) it is such a short period and changed so dramatically by a single year that the 'pause' trend is hardly robust to begin with and can be, quite rightly, explained by short-term natural variability and observational uncertainties rather than some error in the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect.





However, Dr. Whitehouse's falsehoods and misdirection are his own cross to bear: It was a valiant attempt at deflection from your own lies, but I'd prefer it if you address the things which you have said and posted rather than C&Ping even more propaganda.

Mithrae said:

As I've shown in the post above - and again below with the older HadCRUT3 data - as of 2005/06 there was nothing whatsoever unusual about the progress of global warming: Global temperatures were rising over that statistically insignificant period at the same rate as the equivalent period before it. And that's even starting from the big 1998 El Nino, which of course had always been reviled as a terrible place to end a trend, but obviously was now an important point to start one (just as 2015/2016 will be in a few more years).

This alleged contrarian rhetoric from 2005/06 was even less justified than their rhetoric in the 1990s, and the happenstance by which there eventuated a 'pause' from ~2003 to ~2011 is pure coincidence which Dr. Whiteface is attempting to claim credit for. He himself asserts that the pause by his measure began in 2001... but is praising people who after a mere four years asserted that there was some significant change in trend?

Click to expand...

Damn the edit time limit! Just noticed that should be 2006/07. Also I got the name Dr. Whitehouse correct later in the post. I'm sure there is no good reason whatsoever I confused him with Dr. Whiteface, the head of the guild of clowns and fools in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series :lol:

Mithrae said:

Again: Show me where Hedemann et al - the paper cited in your post #1, your post #2, your post #3, your post #4 and your post #5 - even mentions Karl et al.

If you cannot do so, the honest thing would be to acknowledge that your claims that it "debunked" Karl et al and 'exposed it as political charlatanry' are clear and obvious falsehoods. I let it slide initially, as anyone reading the thread can see, but your decision to resurrect your earlier lie with yet another, even more brazen one really is beyond the pale.

Of the two academic papers cited in this thread, one does not mention Karl et al at all and the second one cites it and three other papers as legitimate scientific perspectives casting doubt on claims of a 10+ year 'hiatus.'

Click to expand...

Hedemann et al refutes the basic contention of Karl et al. Refutes = debunks. It would have been tasteless grandstanding to call out Karl et al by name. The words "debunked" and "charlatanry" are true, accurate and applicable.

Mithrae said:

. . . However, Dr. Whitehouse's falsehoods and misdirection are his own cross to bear: It was a valiant attempt at deflection from your own lies, but I'd prefer it if you address the things which you have said and posted rather than C&Ping even more propaganda.

Click to expand...

Your silly rant notwithstanding, neither Dr. Whitehouse nor I have a cross to bear. Karl et al has been debunked as the Lysenko-esque charlatanry it is.

Jack Hays said:

Hedemann et al refutes the basic contention of Karl et al. Refutes = debunks. It would have been tasteless grandstanding to call out Karl et al by name. The words "debunked" and "charlatanry" are true, accurate and applicable.

Click to expand...

Karl et al 2015 discusses observational uncertainties and errors in the temperature record; Hedemann et al discusses observational uncertainties in energy budget constraints. At a glance Karl et al does not look into hypothetical explanatory mechanisms for warming hiatuses at all, which is what Hedemann et al is about, and Hedemann et al does not look into possible biases in the temperature record at all.

By your 'logic' every time someone merely uses one data source (eg. Longview uses GISS data quite often, which happens to include the SST corrections discussed in Karl et al), they are thereby "debunking" and exposing as "charlatanry" every other divergent data source. Your 'reasoning' is apparently based on a belief that hypothetical enquiry, legitimate uncertainties and scientific disagreements do not or can not exist: Your dogmatic notion that if one scientist favours (even implicitly, as in the case of Hedemann et al's largely hypothetical model-based investigation of energy budget parameters for hiatuses) perspective A, scientists favouring perspective B must be heretics and charlatans.

In short you've displayed not only an utter contempt for truth or accuracy but, in trying to justify your falsehoods, for the scientific process itself.



Of course it would be nice to think you have merely failed to grasp such a basic distinction as the two papers' different topics. Your vicious ongoing rhetoric really doesn't encourage much benefit of the doubt here, but you're welcome to tell us if that's the case.

Mithrae said:

Karl et al 2015 discusses observational uncertainties and errors in the temperature record; Hedemann et al discusses observational uncertainties in energy budget constraints. At a glance Karl et al does not look into hypothetical explanatory mechanisms for warming hiatuses at all, which is what Hedemann et al is about, and Hedemann et al does not look into possible biases in the temperature record at all.

By your 'logic' every time someone merely uses one data source (eg. Longview uses GISS data quite often, which happens to include the SST corrections discussed in Karl et al), they are thereby "debunking" and exposing as "charlatanry" every other divergent data source. Your 'reasoning' is apparently based on a belief that hypothetical enquiry, legitimate uncertainties and scientific disagreements do not or can not exist: Your dogmatic notion that if one scientist favours (even implicitly, as in the case of Hedemann et al's largely hypothetical model-based investigation of energy budget parameters for hiatuses) perspective A, scientists favouring perspective B must be heretics and charlatans.

In short you've displayed not only an utter contempt for truth or accuracy but, in trying to justify your falsehoods, for the scientific process itself.



Of course it would be nice to think you have merely failed to grasp such a basic distinction as the two papers' different topics. Your vicious ongoing rhetoric really doesn't encourage much benefit of the doubt here, but you're welcome to tell us if that's the case.

Click to expand...

The point of Karl et al was to erase the Pause. Hedemann et al shows the Pause was real. My rhetoric is only "vicious" in the sense a guilty verdict discomfits a criminal.

Jack Hays said:

The point of Karl et al was to erase the Pause. Hedemann et al shows the Pause was real. My rhetoric is only "vicious" in the sense a guilty verdict discomfits a criminal.

Click to expand...

Good stuff... capitalizing the Pause doesn't make it look like an article of faith at all

Hedemann et al specifically notes a 0.05C/decade warming trend from 1998 to 2012. You reproduced it in their Figure 1 in post #4, for crying out loud! In the very opening post of the thread, you quoted the abstract which even more explicitly states that the surface warmed over that period, just not as much as in prior decades or projected by models, a discontinuity dubbed a 'hiatus':

Jack Hays in his opening post said:

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated

Click to expand...

I understand that your 'thing' is simply C&Ping from propaganda blogs, and your eternal unwillingness or inability to actually discuss the subject matter implies that you rarely if ever read the source material: But don't you even look at your own posts?



Edit:
Of course, in spite of this cold dose of reality, perhaps you can still take comfort from the fact that Hedemann et al did not actually debunk The Pause, because the warming trend simply wasn't the subject matter of their paper: That's not what they investigated and it's not what they showed, it's simply a figure that they took as a given starting point from the IPCC reports. As I've already attempted to explain (and I suspect any high-school level readers if we have any have understood it, even if you did not), Hedemann et al were simply interested in the question "Is it even possible to conclusively explain such a phenomenon with current data?" Their paper would have been virtually identical whether they'd used data showing a zero trend, or if they'd used data showing a 0.1C/decade trend instead of simply using the IPCC figures they did, because the paper is about the energy budget constraints of a given perturbation of trend (~0.17C/decade in this case).

Mithrae said:

Good stuff... capitalizing the Pause doesn't make it look like an article of faith at all

Hedemann et al specifically notes a 0.05C/decade warming trend from 1998 to 2012. You reproduced it in their Figure 1 in post #4, for crying out loud! In the very opening post of the thread, you quoted the abstract which even more explicitly states that the surface warmed over that period, just not as much as in prior decades or projected by models, a discontinuity dubbed a 'hiatus':


I understand that your 'thing' is simply C&Ping from propaganda blogs, and your eternal unwillingness or inability to actually discuss the subject matter implies that you rarely if ever read the source material: But don't you even look at your own posts?



Edit:
Of course, in spite of this cold dose of reality, perhaps you can still take comfort from the fact that Hedemann et al did not actually debunk The Pause, because the warming trend simply wasn't the subject matter of their paper: That's not what they investigated and it's not what they showed, it's simply a figure that they took as a given starting point from the IPCC reports. As I've already attempted to explain (and I suspect any high-school level readers if we have any have understood it, even if you did not), Hedemann et al were simply interested in the question "Is it even possible to conclusively explain such a phenomenon with current data?" Their paper would have been virtually identical whether they'd used data showing a zero trend, or if they'd used data showing a 0.1C/decade trend instead of simply using the IPCC figures they did, because the paper is about the energy budget constraints of a given perturbation of trend (~0.17C/decade in this case).

Click to expand...

I really don't care whether it's called the Pause or the Hiatus; they have the same meaning and describe a real phenomenon, debunking the charlatanry of Karl et al.

Jack Hays said:

I really don't care whether it's called the Pause or the Hiatus; they have the same meaning and describe a real phenomenon, debunking the charlatanry of Karl et al.

Click to expand...

Mere semantics? If only. Prior to 2016 or so you of all people posted virtually endless threads on this forum insisting on the basis of one cherry-picked dataset that there had been "no warming" since some 1990s date. That was your capitalized Pause, a gospel so important to you that you felt the need to start a new thread about it pretty much every single month (if not moreso) for years on end. The starting point of Hedemann et al is in direct contradiction with the views you constantly promoted for years on end.

Obviously that isn't something you want to hear, but you've spent so long digging your own grave by insisting that whatever data they took as a given - as a starting point from which to proceed to their actual investigation - is not only an iron-clad truth in itself but a damning indictment of any inconsistent claims. Ironically, for all your bluster and lies, Karl et al is actually explicitly consistent with Hedemann et al; it notes the pitfalls of trend-picking on a short time-frame, yet it does clearly show a 1998-2012 trend which is lower than the long-term and model averages, and (in explicitly highlighting the uncertainties involved) shows a 90% confidence interval which still thoroughly encapsulates the latter's 0.05C/decade figure.

But for your part, in your tireless accusations and hostility towards these scientists you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the uncertainties and different subject matter of either paper; and likewise in your endless "no warming" threads have never highlighted the different data sources or greater observational uncertainties of the satellite records. If Hedemann et al 'debunk' and expose anything as political charlatanry, it is the endless trash propaganda which you inflicted on this forum for so many years.



So... what will your next desperate back-pedaling attempt be?
> First you insisted that it simply didn't matter whether Karl et al were even mentioned at all.
> Then you tried to claim that a paper which cites Karl et al and three other studies as legitimate papers casting doubt on a 10+ year pause was really, somehow, confirming your Pause.
> Then you tried to deflect with David Whitehouse's agenda-driven falsehoods.
> And since then you've just tried to pass off a series of dogmatic one-liners as a substitute for intelligent discussion.

Medhaug et al didn't confirm your Pause. Hedemann et al didn't confirm your Pause. They are both entirely consistent with Karl et al: But the paper you have for so long, so viciously and so fallaciously been insisting 'debunks' and exposes as 'chalatanry' by its mere choice of starting data, clearly therefore exposes your political charlatanry for what it is.

Not that it's really news to anyone, but the irony of you promoting material which debunks your own BS is certainly quite amusing :lol:

Mithrae said:

Mere semantics? If only. Prior to 2016 or so you of all people posted virtually endless threads on this forum insisting on the basis of one cherry-picked dataset that there had been "no warming" since some 1990s date. That was your capitalized Pause, a gospel so important to you that you felt the need to start a new thread about it pretty much every single month (if not moreso) for years on end. The starting point of Hedemann et al is in direct contradiction with the views you constantly promoted for years on end.

Obviously that isn't something you want to hear, but you've spent so long digging your own grave by insisting that whatever data they took as a given - as a starting point from which to proceed to their actual investigation - is not only an iron-clad truth in itself but a damning indictment of any inconsistent claims. Ironically, for all your bluster and lies, Karl et al is actually explicitly consistent with Hedemann et al; it notes the pitfalls of trend-picking on a short time-frame, yet it does clearly show a 1998-2012 trend which is lower than the long-term and model averages, and (in explicitly highlighting the uncertainties involved) shows a 90% confidence interval which still thoroughly encapsulates the latter's 0.05C/decade figure.

But for your part, in your tireless accusations and hostility towards these scientists you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the uncertainties and different subject matter of either paper; and likewise in your endless "no warming" threads have never highlighted the different data sources or greater observational uncertainties of the satellite records. If Hedemann et al 'debunk' and expose anything as political charlatanry, it is the endless trash propaganda which you inflicted on this forum for so many years.



So... what will your next desperate back-pedaling attempt be?
> First you insisted that it simply didn't matter whether Karl et al were even mentioned at all.
> Then you tried to claim that a paper which cites Karl et al and three other studies as legitimate papers casting doubt on a 10+ year pause was really, somehow, confirming your Pause.
> Then you tried to deflect with David Whitehouse's agenda-driven falsehoods.
> And since then you've just tried to pass off a series of dogmatic one-liners as a substitute for intelligent discussion.

Medhaug et al didn't confirm your Pause. Hedemann et al didn't confirm your Pause. They are both entirely consistent with Karl et al: But the paper you have for so long, so viciously and so fallaciously been insisting 'debunks' and exposes as 'chalatanry' by its mere choice of starting data, clearly therefore exposes your political charlatanry for what it is.

Not that it's really news to anyone, but the irony of you promoting material which debunks your own BS is certainly quite amusing :lol:

Click to expand...

Hedemann assumes the Pause (or Hiatus) was a real event.

Christopher Hedemann, Thorsten Mauritsen, Johann Jungclaus & Jochem Marotzke
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2017) doi:10.1038/nclimate3274
Received 12 July 2016 Accepted 17 March 2017 Published online 17 April 2017

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated1. This surface-warming hiatus is attributed by some studies to model errors in external forcing2, 3, 4, while others point to heat rearrangements in the ocean5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10caused by internal variability, the timing of which cannot be predicted by the models1. However, observational analyses disagree about which ocean region is responsible11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.

The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research
(paywalled)

Medhaug likewise confirms the Pause was real.