• Was there a global warming hiatus?

    There’s an interesting trend going around, I’ve noticed.  That is to pronounce the global warming hiatus a “myth”.

    Here’s the Guardian calling it “the most flaky meme”.

    Popular Science says that the hiatus never actually happened.

    Phil Plait chimes in with the same.

    So, if the pause was never real, why do people keep talking about it?  Why, those evil deniers, that’s why!

    Plait: “Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs:”

    The Guardian: “This particular myth has been a favorite of deniers over the past decade…”

    The Pacific Standard: “The “global warming pause” quickly became a favorite talking point of climate deniers”

    Got it.  It’s those evil, evil deniers who put this insane idea out there that global warming had stopped.  Deniers like, say, Nature Climate Change

    Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earths global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.

    Or those notorious deniers over at Science:

    Global warming seems to have paused over the past 15 years

    Or the Koch-funded propaganda outfit Nature:

    After a rise of 0.5°C in the 25 years starting in the mid-1970s, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero since the turn of the century

    Or those terrible conservatives over at Advances in Climate Change Research:

    ….the pause of global warming in the last decade….

    Or the republicans over at The Journal of Climate Research:

    The recent hiatus in global warming…

    And so on.  You can try this for yourself – just use google scholar to look for the term.

    Now, you can say that the global warming pause was a data artefact (though if the models completely failed to predict it – and they did indeed so fail – I’m not sure how much we should trust their prediction in the future).  You can say that global warming will start up again (which it seems to have done).  You can say it will be worse in the futre.

    What you cannot do honestly, is Argue Like Stalin and claim that only eeeeeevil deniers are responsible for thinking this.

     

     

     

     

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      Did you actually read the articles you posted as showing the “slowdown”?

      For example; http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
      ” Chen and Tung used observational data to trace the pathways of recent ocean heating. They conclude that the deep Atlantic and Southern Oceans, but not the Pacific, have absorbed the excess heat that would otherwise have fueled continued warming.”

      From the ABSTRACT of the nature article
      “A global climate model that factors in the observed temperature of the surface ocean in the eastern equatorial Pacific offers an explanation for the recent hiatus in global warming.”

      From the Journal of Climate Research article
      “The recent hiatus in global warming is likely to be reflected in Andean temperature, given its close dependence on tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST). While recent work in the subtropical Andes has indeed documented a cooling along coastal areas, trends in the tropical Andes show continued warming. Here we analyze spatiotemporal temperature variability along the western side of the Andes with a dense station network updated to 2010 and investigate its linkages to tropical Pacific modes of variability. Results indicate that the warming in tropical latitudes has come to a halt and that the subtropical regions continue to experience cooling. Trends, however, are highly dependent on elevation. While coastal regions experience cooling, higher elevations continue to warm. The coastal cooling is consistent with the observed Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) fingerprint and can be accurately simulated using a simple PDO-analog model.”

      Note the last sentence “accurately simulated”.

      Note the second sentence “The tropical Andes show continued warming”

      There was a time (and no one disagrees with this) where the Earths SURFACE temperature didn’t rise as quickly as models predicted.

      However, it was not a hiatus of ALL global warming. Just the part at the surface where all of our thermometers are.

      The oceans continued to warm, absorbing the heat that could have increased atmospheric temperatures.

      From the abstract of the article you claim shows the failure of the models
      “Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.”

      In other words, you seem to be fundamentally misrepresenting the literature here.

      Not only does this article explain the reason for the observed hiatus, but it “strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models”

      You’re right though. It’s not just evil deniers who say these things.

      But it is “evil deniers” who purposefully take scientific information out of context and misrepresent the articles that they claim supports their own position.

      • ThePrussian

        As a matter of fact I do. Do you read the articles you post on?

        Yeah, those articles are looking for an _explanation_ as to _why_ the pause happened. They do _not deny the existence of the pause_. Which was my point: to read the popular press you’d think the pause was just invented by some sinister Koch-funded denials group.

        Here’s the paragraph you seem to have skipped:

        “Now, you can say that the global warming pause was a data artefact (though if the models completely failed to predict it – and they did indeed so fail – I’m not sure how much we should trust their prediction in the future). You can say that global warming will start up again (which it seems to have done). You can say it will be worse in the future.”

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Here’s the thing. This may be a semantic argument.

          When you say “global warming pause” I take it to mean that you think that the Earth stopped heating up for a period of time.

          That is not true. The Earth continued to warm… the excess heat that would have gone into the atmosphere was, instead, absorbed by the oceans.

          What I think you mean is that (as I said) the “average surface temperature of Earth didn’t increase as much over that time period as the models predicted, but the models didn’t take into account ocean absorption”.

          Is that the case?

          If so, then we’re fine and I would encourage you to use more correct terminology. If that’s not the case, then please explain what you actually mean.

          For example, if you look at the decades… there is no pause in the surface warming.
          Year degrees C degrees F
          1880s 13.73 56.71
          1890s 13.75 56.74
          1900s 13.74 56.73
          1910s 13.72 56.70
          1920s 13.83 56.89
          1930s 13.96 57.12
          1940s 14.04 57.26
          1950s 13.98 57.16
          1960s 13.99 57.18
          1970s 14.00 57.20
          1980s 14.18 57.52
          1990s 14.31 57.76
          2000s 14.51 58.12

          Now, if you look at the actual yearly data… well, it varies year to year. Here’s the complete data set
          https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

          But that’s one reason climate scientists talk about the 5-year mean. It’s a way to smooth out unusual years (like 1998, which is the only one of the top ten hottest years on record that is not since 2000.

          So, when you say “Pause”, do you mean like climate scientists mean it? i.e. surface temperatures
          Or do you mean it like global warming denialists “the Earth didn’t increase in temperature and thus global warming is false”/

          Remember that denialists will always use language ambiguity to their advantage. Global warming denialists are taking the skils perfected by creationists for the last few decades and doing stuff just like this to convince people that global warming isn’t happening.

          We wouldn’t want to help, even accidentally, perpetuate that myth, right?

          • ThePrussian

            To take that last point, I’ve always said that global warming is real, manmade, and a problem. I have also said that, given the utter dishonesty and mendacity of warming _policy_ advocate, such as Michael Mann, Al Gore etc. it is completely rational for some people to take the denials position.

            I’m lucky – I can look at the actual journals and studies myself. Most people aren’t. So when they see that:

            1) the term “global warming pause” is all over the literature

            and

            2) that the advocates are now going THERE WAS NO PAUSE!!!! ONLY WICKED KOCHDENIALISTREPUBLICANS EVER SAY THERE WAS A PAUSE!

            …they conclude that the whole thing is a crock.

            Back to the science – the models never predicted this pause. That means their predictive power is seriously questionable, something admitted by, y’know, the IPCC predictions themselves. But just try making that case and see what response you get.

    • Goosebumps

      Hans von Storch seemed to take similar (reasonable) positions regarding the global warming pause in this 2013 interview by Der Spiegel.

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

      In response to a question on whether it has led him to reconsider the theory of human-caused climate change, he said “I don’t believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.”

      Wonder what his current views are, now that warming appears to have started again.

    • josh

      The correct answer seems to be there was no statistically meaningful pause.
      See for instance:
      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/climate-trend-change-do-it-right/#more-9343
      and
      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/testing-for-change/
      and similar posts. Of course one can always find a pause or even a drop by cherry-picking over a relatively short time period, but that’s improper analysis. Global warming is about the long-term trend, and that trend is expected to have short term fluctuations.

      Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that only deniers have ever used the term ‘hiatus’. Even some legitimate climate scientists have for a couple reasons: 1) Some of them have just made statistical mistakes, not every climate researcher has a deep understanding of statistical analysis. 2) Some of them are interested in better understanding the short term fluctuations around the trend, thus they are not talking about a hiatus in the trend and thus not talking about a hiatus in global warming. However, it is of course the deniers who both don’t understand the statistics and don’t understand the nature of global warming, and who have seized on their misunderstandings to shore up their denial.

      It’s also misleading at best to say that models failed to predict the data. The models are not expected to predict short term fluctuations in detail. They are too chaotic, it’s like predicting the next roll of dice at a casino. That’s why models are used to generate an ensemble of possible futures. These tell us what the long-term trends are expected to look like (within a range) and here the models agree with observations. They also give us an idea of what kinds of short term fluctuations to expect and here they are also consistent. Decade plus “pauses” were in fact shown to be possible in the model data. What the models don’t do is predict that such a period will necessarily happen and especially they don’t predict when. Obviously it would be nice if we could predict such things and that is one reason for some scientists to study the recent decades, but there are also some intrinsic limitations to how well we can ever do with short-term weather. The important lesson though is that this doesn’t change our ability to predict the long-term behavior, in much the same way that a casino will always make money as long as people play.

      • ThePrussian

        Josh, with respect, I’m going to go with what the actual literature says. And what it said was: HIATUS! HIATUS! HIATUS!

        And the line about “short term can’t be predicted” doesn’t hold water. 17 years is short term? That was not said at all in advance, and the papers read exactly like people who were blindsided by the hiatus and are trying to explain it. For crying out loud, they say as much in the paper titles!

        I’ve read your post – sorry. It is just not credible that Science, Nature etc. ran with p=0.03 That does not hold water.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          And I’m going to go with the current literature that explains why there was an “apparent” hiatus that actually didn’t happen.

          I will also go with the current models that do accurately show the apparent pause caused by the massive uptake of ocean temperature at the expense of near surface temperatures.

          I know that you hate Mann with a passion. But that doesn’t make everything he’s ever said wrong.

          To me, this is much like a creationist taking Gould or Valentine out of context to support the idea that evolution doesn’t happen. You focus on the concept of the hiatus or pause… without seeming to understand that the issue is now (but not in the past) understood.

          This is the biggest problem with science, especially popular science. Every jumps on this epic bandwagon (“ZOMG, NASA found life that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus.”) which turns out to be nothing (“no, that life doesn’t use arsenic instead of phosphorus”), but people want to believe it because they have bias for or against a certain position.

          I’m seriously concerned that your hatred of Mann has colored your thoughts here.

          • ThePrussian

            I never mentioned Mann here. I’m simply insisting on an accurate reading of the literature. I’m no where near enough of a specialist to critique the literature itself – but I _can_ see where it’s being wrongly – and dishonestly – cited.

            I take exception to this:

            “You focus on the concept of the hiatus or pause… without seeming to understand that the issue is now (but not in the past) understood.”

            How many times to I need to say it? I am addressing the question of whether or not the actual record of the literature is honestly discussed. That’s it.

            Only one thing I can say though about models – I did my Ph.D. on them:

            “I will also go with the current models that do accurately show the apparent pause caused by the massive uptake of ocean temperature at the expense of near surface temperatures.”

            Models can’t _show_ anything. Any model is only a hypothesis – maybe a sophisticated hypothesis, but a hypothesis nonetheless. It needs must be proven by experimental evidence or it’s worthless.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Mann was mentioned in another comment.

              I agree that an accurate discussion of the literature is exceedingly important. But, it’s even more important to accurately describe the science correctly… especially with things that are socially, but not scientifically, controversial.

              I believe that your post misrepresents the state of climate knowledge and encourages a misunderstanding of the actual state of the science.

              That’s my problem.

            • ThePrussian

              Okay – how does it do that? By quoting from the papers? By linking directly to them?

              Where is the misrepresentation? Whenever anyone can point to something I get wrong, I correct it.

              And I mentioned Mann in a comment, not in this post, because I was simply restating my position – again.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              BTW: You never did answer my question. That question is critical to this discussion.

              Do you think that A) The hiatus was ONLY surface temperature or B) the hiatus was NO global warming during the period in question.

            • ThePrussian

              Can you answer my question?

              My answer is – I’m really not sure. I can tell you what the literature says, but that’s it, and it suggests that there is a combination of increased warming of the ocean as well as increased loss to space. On the other hand, there’s some measurements showing, e.g., the Pacific, cooling during this period. Or I see papers saying that the pause was just a data artefact. All these things cannot be simultaneously true.

              I don’t have the background to analyse this or make a call. That’s why I emphasise the correct citations from the literature. It needs a lot of evidence before I dismiss something from the literature.

              Now: please answer me where I have been misleading. I would really love to hear that.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              See my most recent post.

              How about this then?

              http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
              “Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.”

              This is from the same time frame as the citations you list. Published in June of 2015

              Here’s one from 2014
              https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/hiatus-in-rise-of-earths-surface-air-temperature-likely-temporary/

              Note statement that the temperature was actually still increasing and the “hiatus” was a slowing of the increase.

              I will also point out that this article mentions how the known oscillations in decade long ocean events can affect ocean temperature. Is it predictable to within a year and a tenth of a degree… probably not. But these are known factors that researchers started plugging into their models before the links you provided.

              Another 2014
              http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D7639

              Notice the same kinds of statements. That the temp is just rising slower.

              Here’s a model from 2011 that describes the things you say aren’t modeled.
              https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Fasullo/publication/232753858_Model-based_evidence_of_deep-ocean_heat_uptake_during_surface-temperature_hiatus_periods/links/00b7d51a7ae4147131000000/Model-based-evidence-of-deep-ocean-heat-uptake-during-surface-temperature-hiatus-periods.pdf

              “Thus, a hiatus period is consistent with our physical picture of
              how the climate system works, and does not invalidate our basic
              understanding of greenhouse-gas-induced warming or the models
              used to simulate such warming.”

              Keeping in mind that during the “hiatus” period, the Earth was still warming.

              “I don’t have the background to analyse this or make a call.”

              Then why pretend to? Why not look to what climatologists are actually saying now and in the past. Three articles is not enough to say “climate science doesn’t know what they are talking about.”

              I explain in a new comment why I think your OP is misleading and harmful.

            • ThePrussian

              “Then why pretend to? Why not look to what climatologists are actually saying now and in the past.”

              That is what I am doing. I am looking directly at the literature. What I am criticising is the dishonest and mendacious way it is being presented in the media.

              “Three articles is not enough to say “climate science doesn’t know what they are talking about.””

              This is hallucinatory – where have I said that?

              And speaking of which, what are those papers supposed to prove? Take the Science paper by Karl et al – I’ve read it before. It’s a good study.

              But it has no bearing on the point I was making, which is that the idea that the “hiatus” was cooked up by KochDenalists is hogwash. Many people in the profession said it was real at the time.

              What’s harmful is trying to paper this over.

            • ThePrussian

              Just to add onto my previous post: the reason I’m so irritable about this is that activist ideology has grown so screwy that I cannot even state the facts of the science – that warming paused, that the models didn’t see it coming, and that the models are being revised with the new evidence (literally the definition of the scientific method – without being labelled as “misleading”.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              And I’m extremely irritable that you are not promoting known science and instead promoting a misleading statement about the science without explaining yourself fully.

              Again, I’ve offered plenty of explanation. If you don’t get it, then you don’t get it.

              “hat warming paused,”

              Which didn’t happen. Even the papers you cited say that warming didn’t pause.

              “that the models didn’t see it coming,”

              More recent models did. No, they didn’t see it coming in the 1980s. But they knew what was causing it before the papers you cited were written.

              ” and that the models are being revised with the new evidence”

              Which is true enough.

              Again, it really depends on how you define hiatus and how you define warming. The warming didn’t stop. The surface warming didn’t stop. Look at the decade trends that I gave you in my first comment.

              That’s why I’m so frustrated and why I liken this to arguing with creationists. Heck, one of the papers you cited only covers the Andean Moutain region of South America, which apparently had a slight negative trend for a year. But that’s not what you mention. It’s a scientist calling it a “hiatus” and that’s that.

              Look at is this way. Let’s replace all the words dealing with climate change with “ball”. You throw up a bunch of links saying that balls aren’t spherical and I counter them with all the examples that are. But, you say, I’m talking about an American football. Well, that’s fine then. American footballs are not spherical, but that’s not what you implied in your original comment.

              That’s the kind of issue I’m having.

            • ThePrussian

              “More recent models did.” – no. They don’t. That’s hind casting, not forecasting. If there is a model that predicted – in advance – that the surface temperature pause would happen, please post it here. I’d love to see it.

              “Again, it really depends on how you define hiatus and how you define warming. The warming didn’t stop. The surface warming didn’t stop. ”

              “Heck, one of the papers you cited only covers the Andean Moutain region of South America, which apparently had a slight negative trend for a year.”

              Right, because climatologists never draw global inferences by studying representative areas. See below for my further comment on your misunderstanding this paper.

              Once again, I am going with the definition that is good enough for the scientists who published in the journals – who, oh yeah, did say that surface warming did stop.

              Okay, let me run with your metaphor about “ball”. Let’s say that football was such an elite, hard to enter and hard to understand activity that only specialists could do. Let’s say that the general public only saw football through the lenses of careful press releases that are heavily massaged.

              Now let’s say the public gets hold of a bunch of reports about the egg-shaped balls, and, whenever anyone asks questions, they are met with “HAHA! STUPID FOOTBALL DENIALISTS! EVERYONE KNOWS BALLS ARE ROUND!”

              That’s the state of the global warming debate today.

        • josh

          Dear Prussian, I’m asking you to go with what the actual statistics say. If you can find a paper titled “HIATUS! HIATUS! HIATUS!” I would suggest you look at how it does its analysis and see if the kinds of criticisms I linked to apply. But beyond that, like I said above, there are scientific questions that can be asked about the fluctuations around the long-term trend. One such question was: if additional energy is coming in, where has it gone rather than atmospheric warming? An obvious answer is that it’s going into the oceans, but the details are exactly the sort of thing climatologists study. Climatology isn’t immune to buzzwords and trendy research and ‘hiatus’ became the topic du jour for some researchers. But that doesn’t change the point that nothing was ever so far outside statistical plausibility to undermine global warming as we understand it. Here’s a link from 2013, when the ‘hiatus’ was still all the rage, from a website run by actual climatologists.
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

          As they explained at the time, the observed ‘slowdown’, (observed if you cherry-pick a starting year), was not outside the range of expectation and didn’t change the long term trend. They also helpfully show a model run with a 21 year hiatus!

          Yes, seventeen years is short term when talking about climate. The common saw is that 15 years is the threshold of climactic significance but that is of course not exact . That’s why you need to do the statistics right and understand what they do and don’t tell you. As SmilodonsRetreat brought up, there are also issues with accurately comparing data and simulations and when these are taken into account it reduces even the appearance of a hiatus.

          If someone says ‘no researchers ever used the term hiatus’ they would be wrong. But if the question is ‘was there a hiatus’ the answer is what I gave above: there was no hiatus in the long-term trend. There was an unexceptional downward fluctuation relative to the trend following an upward fluctuation in the 98 super El Niño.

          • ThePrussian

            Please, please feel free to, y’know, actually look at what I quote above. And no, sorry, saying this is a “trendy buzzword” won’t fly – the papers are quite specific that they are talking about a pause in the rate of warming.

            And please find me a model that predicted _in advance_ the hiatus.

            • josh

              I’ve read what you have written, but you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. You are obsessed with the fact that some legitimate scientists used the term hiatus, which I’ve never denied. You don’t seem to be interested in what the science actually says. I pointed you to realclimate.org so you could better understand the science, not because Science is written by non-scientists, but because you aren’t a climate scientist. Either engage with what they say or admit that you aren’t qualified to assess. Note that the model run I pointed out was from the CMIP3 collection, meaning it was probably archived in 2005-2006.

              The papers you cited are in fact specific only in that they talk about a “slowdown” in global surface temperature warming. Note that this is not the same as global warming since the oceans continue to warm. But perhaps more importantly, nothing you linked to even attempts to establish statistical significance as far as I can tell. (Full articles are behind paywalls for some.) The only relevant statement I found was from the ScienceDirect link: “The data suggests that the long-term warming trend still remains or even becomes more serious.” The papers are trying to explore effects on surface temperatures for a specific decade plus time period. They aren’t trying to explain what happened to the long term trend because nothing happened.

              I wish the papers were better written so that people like yourself wouldn’t draw wrong conclusions from them, but that’s a perennial problem in scientific publishing. What I want you to understand is that
              1) There has been no statistically significant change in the warming trend over the last 50-60 years.
              2) Short-term fluctuations are expected and can last for more than a decade. Their specific timing however can’t be predicted.
              3) Heat energy has continued to increase in the earth system due to greenhouse gases. In the beginning of this century relatively more of this heat went into the oceans than into the atmosphere compared to previous decades. This is not a halt to global warming.
              4)Climate models have not been invalidated by data. They have been reasonably accurate.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      I would like to point out that this is TRUE.

      “Plait: “Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs:””

      That is very true. They say that the hockey stick is wrong. It’s not. They will pull graphs that use winter temps and compare to summer temps in the arctic to show that global warming doesn’t happen.

      “The Guardian: “This particular myth has been a favorite of deniers over the past decade…””

      This is true. Climate change deniers STILL use this, even though it’s been shown to be not true.

      “The Pacific Standard: “The “global warming pause” quickly became a favorite talking point of climate deniers””

      This is true. It is a favorite claim of deniers.

      Now, what you say is also true. That climatologists were confused about why the surface temperature wasn’t rising as fast as the models predicted. They did use the terms hiatus and pause.

      However, and this is critical to the point I’ve been trying to make, which you are ignoring. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.

      Climatologists do not talk about the hiatus or pause in global warming, unless they are talking very specifically about the surface temperature in a narrow time frame. They know that the apparent pause in surface temperatures is because of the massive increase in ocean warming. Global warming (the average temperature of the planet) did not ever pause. There was no hiatus if you consider all heat storage locations on the planet.

      The problem that I have with your OP is that you never say anything like this. You imply that climatologists still think that there is hiatus.

      I wouldn’t have cared if you had said “that’s what climatologists said then, but now they know what was going on”.

      That is the misrepresentation that I think you are making. You are implying, by not revealing what climatologists say now, that the hiatus was real and is a valid argument. It’s not.

      Further, as you can see by the data I provided to you, if you consider anything other than yearly surface temperature data and look at, for example, decade trends or ocean warming, then the hiatus is clearly not present.

      You are, by your omission, giving climate deniers the ammunition that they use to justify their beliefs.

      That’s the problem I have with the OP.

      • ThePrussian

        Er – except it’s not a myth and it really happened. So, so much for it being an invention of the evil, evil deniers.

        “I wouldn’t have cared if you had said “that’s what climatologists said then, but now they know what was going on”.

        I said, in so many words, the first part. I don’t say the second part, because that’s spurious – what’s happening now is that they have a better view of what may be going on (different causes, not to mention different contributions of different causes are hotly debated in the literature).

        “Further, as you can see by the data I provided to you, if you consider anything other than yearly surface temperature data and look at, for example, decade trends or ocean warming, then the hiatus is clearly not present.”

        Which was not the point of the post. What was under discussion is whether or not the “hiatus” was cooked up by those evil-weevil “deniers”. It. Wasn’t.

        “You are, by your omission, giving climate deniers the ammunition that they use to justify their beliefs.”

        If anything is giving “deniers” “ammunition” it is this sort of flummery. It’s people like Plait saying “Oh, it’s only the deniers who talk about a pause” – when the pause is all over the literature.

        When people see this sort of sleight-of-hand, what do you think they conclude? What I keep pointing out is that the _public presentation_ of the science (NOT the science itself) is so screwy and dishonest that people who cannot access the actual science have sound reason for dismissing it.

        “There is no more perfidious way of attacking a cause than defending it with faulty arguments” – Nietzsche.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          The public presentation of science is massively, hugely flawed. You have no argument from me on that.

          I will continue to disagree with you though. As I pointed out, this is very much like creationism. People taking articles, statements of scientists, out of context without understanding. To do so purposefully is wrong.

          Again, I will point out that in one of the articles you listed, the hiatus is in the Andean Mountain range. Not the planet.

          Let’s say a climate change denier saw your article here and took your articles and just said “Mathias Vuille (a professor and very smart man) says that there is a hiatus in global warming.”

          Would that be acceptable or wrong?

          • ThePrussian

            That’d be completely acceptable because, in the very first paragraph he says:

            “The recent slowdown in global warming…”

            _global_ warming. Not Andean.

            And he goes on to say:

            “Nowhere on Earth does this recent halt in warming appear to be more obvious than along the extratropical west coast of…”

            Wait – “nowhere on Earth”? Sounds like he is talking about a global phenomenon. Because he is.

            What’s wrong is your line here:

            “Again, I will point out that in one of the articles you listed, the hiatus is in the Andean Mountain range. ”

            That is not what the paper says. The paper is saying that the hiatus is global – and that a global hiatus is most visible in the Andes. That’s like me saying “international trade is a global phenomenon, and is nowhere more visible than in the new port-cities of China” – or whatever.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Hmmm..
              I think, again, that this is a problem of miscommunication, not malicious, purposeful misunderstanding. Much like Richard Dawkins saying his now infamous “the appearance of design” quote.

              Let’s look beyond the introduction shall we?

              “The first difference temperature time series for the tropical Andes (2°N–18°S) indicates a significant warming trend of 0.13°C/decade over the past 61 years (1950–2010) (Figure 2a), very similar to the global mean warming rate of 0.12°C/decade between 1951 and 2012”

              No global cooling. Global warming.

              “Our results show a significant warming trend between 1950 and 2010 for the tropical Andes, while the region south of 18°S has experienced cooling over the same time. If only the last 30 years are considered, trends are slightly negative in both regions. This highlights that multidecadal variability strongly affects results from studies on temperature trends and that caution must be exercised when choosing an appropriate time period for analysis. ”

              Local regions. But what about that cooling?

              “Given the continued projected increase in radiative forcing due to greenhouse gas emissions, the warming at higher elevations will likely continue. In coastal areas, however, our results suggest that temperature trends may depend on the future state of the PDO but also be influenced by changes in the intensity of the South Pacific anticyclone (SPA). Most climate models simulate a continued strengthening of the SPA as a result of greenhouse gas forcing [Garreaud and Falvey, 2009], which may lead to continued and enhanced vertical stratification of temperature trends and strongly reduced lapse rates along the western Andean slopes.”

              In short, the Pacific ocean is absorbing the heat, moving the cooler water to the surface and cooling the Andean region.

              I maintain that it is irresponsible to takes quotes from anyone (especially scientists) out of context and imply that something happened that didn’t.

              LOOK AT THE TEMPERATURE DATA I GAVE YOU. NO HIATUS.

              I’ve asked you define hiatus a number of times. you haven’t…

              I think that saying what you said without marking the current knowledge especially with this comment “Now, you can say that the global warming pause was a data artefact (though if the models completely failed to predict it – and they did indeed so fail – I’m not sure how much we should trust their prediction in the future)” is incorrect. You think saying that we understand that now is “spurious”. You are giving ammunition to climate deniers.

              No… I’m not going to go on. You’re not getting and I fundamentally disagree with your position.

            • ThePrussian

              “You’re not getting and I fundamentally disagree with your position.”

              It might be helpful if you could understand what that position was:

              “In short, the Pacific ocean is absorbing the heat, moving the cooler water to the surface and cooling the Andean region.”

              Which is something I’ve never denied – this seems to be the current explanation, though, again, it is controversial because people are still trying to explain the hiatus.

              “I’ve asked you define hiatus a number of times. you haven’t…”

              I said I was going with the definition used in the literature – the cessation of mean global surface temperature increase.

              The only argument that I’ve seen here in the end is that I’m “giving ammunition” to “deniers”. Sorry, that’s the language of political hackwork.

          • ThePrussian

            Since you’ve criticised my distaste for Mann, let me give you another example of what I regard as shoddy and dishonest. In public, Mann dismisses the Medieval Warm Period & the Little Ice Age, and you wouldn’t think such things existed if you looked at his wretched stick.

            But surprise, surprise – when he is forced to work with competent scientists such as Anders Moberg – poof! Those things reappear.

            Hitch once said that it is really hard to find the truth. But identifying a lie is much easier.