Unthreaded
Harry Passfield
although the pause was mentioned it was dismissed as being just a glitch in a short-term weather pattern
The "no warming since 1998" straw man is also obsolete.
The correct approach, of course, is to compare like with like. GISS gives an anomaly temperature of 0.88C for the peak of the 1987/98 ElNino and 1.33C for the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nino.
The difference between them is 0.45C in 18 years. Claiming that this constitutes a pause is a considerable stretch, even by the elastic standards of climate scepticism.
I would have no objection to a sceptic going onto Inside Science ( scientist or not) if, you had something useful to contribute; genuine scientific evidence of your own or a credible alternative hypothesis.
Entropic man
Harry Passfield
although the pause was mentioned it was dismissed as being just a glitch in a short-term weather pattern
The "no warming since 1998" straw man is also obsolete.
The correct approach, of course, is to compare like with like. GISS gives an anomaly temperature of 0.88C for the peak of the 1987/98 ElNino and 1.33C for the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nino.
The difference between them is 0.45C in 18 years. Claiming that this constitutes a pause is a considerable stretch, even by the elastic standards of climate scepticism.
I would have no objection to a sceptic going onto Inside Science ( scientist or not) if, you had something useful to contribute; genuine scientific evidence of your own or a credible alternative hypothesis.
Entropic man
" Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modelling"
Obviously! Outwith models climate science doesn't actuality exist.
Green Sand
Hmm, I come back and the debate has moved into fantasy land.
It seems some people really do believe in astrology and think it's laughable that some of us are sceptical.
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.But historical measurements don't suggest that at all. Look at the warming from 1900 to 1950 and compare that trend with the industrialised period of 1950 to 2000. Nothing unusual is suggested.
Still at least this is an innovative argument.
Instead of "The imagined future is alarming compared with the present"...
We now have "The imagined past makes the present look alarming".
It's only the empirical evidence that opposes the fantasy.
M Courtney
Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling – Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process. Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science By PATRICK J. MICHAELS and David E. Wojick
Great article at WUWT, that EM won't read, as he prefers his models computer adjusted to match the failed predictions.
golf charlie
EM, have you given up on the ECS Thread? Kristian's points remain unanswered, and yet ECS seems to be a bit of a problem for all the Computer Models, that you are so attached to.
golf charlie
EM, you are clutching at Strawmen, but can't be drowning as sea level rise is not happening as predicted by the models.
Your beloved Computer Models continue to overheat. Turn them off before they catch fire, and check for some basic faults in the original wiring.
golf charlie
EM "Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:"
Do they? If so, please do tell us how much, and what proportion of the hiatus is due to human activities.
golf charlie
The models work just fine.
May 19, 2016 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
EM - if you believe that, you'll (as the Duke of Wellington is said to have said) believe anything. But I think we had figured that out already.
Martin A
Golf Charlie
Kristian has wandered back into his fantasy world of increasing insolation. I see no point discussing it further.