Updated list of 29 – Actually 30 – excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming – ‘If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause…’

Updated list of 29 [Updated to 30] excuses for the nearly 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming


“If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”
RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

An updated list of at least 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings: 

1) Low solar activity 

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

UPDATE: It only took a few more days to reach #30:

30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

Embedded image permalink
An incomplete list of excuses

UPDATE: C3 updates the Wayne’s World graphic:


Analysis: Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times

Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times


A new paper finds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth’s “missing heat” from carbon dioxide. Trenberth’s theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year ‘pause’ of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water. 

Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world’s oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times. 

According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world’s most respected oceanographers, 

“A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012).”
Although the paper does not compare these estimates to those of the IPCC, using the “IPCC formula” for forcing from CO2 [which includes alleged positive feedback from water vapor], we find that over the same 19 year period studied by Dr. Wunsch that greenhouse gas forcing allegedly increased by 0.505 W/m2 given the increase in CO2 levels from 356.38 ppm in 1992 to 391.63 ppm in 2011:

5.35*ln(391.63/356.38) = 0.505 W/m2

However, Dr. Wunsch notes above that over the same period the world oceans warmed by only 0.2 ± 0.1 W/m2, or 2.5 times less than the IPCC alleged forcing from greenhouse gases. Note this is assuming that all ocean warming over that period was from greenhouse gas forcing and none from ocean oscillations, solar amplification mechanisms, clouds, global brightening, natural variability, etc. The actual greenhouse forcing on the oceans after feedbacks and natural variability is thus most likely to be a minimum of 2.5 times less than the IPCC claims. 

Dr. Wunsch also finds a forcing of 1 W/m2, if continuously maintained, would change global mean ocean temperature by only …

New paper finds ‘high correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature over centuries’

New paper finds ‘high correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature over centuries’


A new paper published in the Chinese Science Bulletin finds “high correlation between solar activity and the Earth’s averaged surface temperature over centuries.” 

The paper is written in Chinese, but has an English abstract [below] and a press release which states, 

“results demonstrate that solar activity and the Earth’s temperature have significant resonance cycles, and the Earth’s temperature has periodic variations similar to those of the solar activity (Figure 1).     

The study also implies that the “modern maximum” of solar activity agrees well with the global warming of the Earth during the past century. A significant correlation between them can be found (Figure 2). Especially, the correlation between the solar activity and the ocean temperature is higher than the correlation between the solar activity and the land temperature. These results, as pointed out by a peer reviewer, “provide a possible explanation for the global warming”.  

The global wavelet coherence between Sunspot number (a), Total Solar Irradiance (b) and the anomalies of the Earth’s averaged surface temperature. The resonant periodicities of 21.3-year (21.5-year), 52.3-year (61.6-year), and… Click here for more information. 

It is left to the reader to translate the paper from Chinese, but it appears from the abstract and press release to support other work demonstrating that cumulative solar activity explains much of the global warming of the 20th century, indeed over the past 400 years.  Has solar activity influenced Earth’s global warming?A recent study demonstrates the existence of significant resonance cycles and high correlations between solar activity and the Earth’s averaged surface temperature over centuries. This provides a new clue to reveal the phenomenon of global warming in recent years.Their work, entitled “Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations” was published in CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN (In Chinese) 2014 No.14 with the co-corresponding authors of Dr. Zhao Xinhua and Dr. Feng Xueshang from State key laboratory of space weather, CSSAR/NSSC, Chinese Academy of Sciences. It adopts the wavelet analysis technique and cross correlation method to investigate the periodicities of solar activity and the Earth’s temperature as well as their correlations during the past centuries.Global warming is one of the hottest and most debatable issues at present. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that the release of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributed to 90% or even higher

Gina McCarthy, EPA: carbon reduction is not about pollution – it’s about money

Gina McCarthy, EPA: carbon reduction is not about pollution – it’s about money


I don’t think Gina McCarthy had through this through. McCarthy to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: “And the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants…It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units,” “This is an investment strategy that will really not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design,” McCarthy added. She is discussing something called the Clean Power Plan. Mark this day. She goes on to find the perpetual motion machine of economics: Sir, what I know about this rule is that I know it will leave the United States in 2030 with a more efficient and cleaner energy supply system — and more jobs in clean energy, which are the jobs of the future,” McCarthy responded. The EPA doesn’t just have a landline to God. They are God. They can use less energy to generate more wealth, more employment, and global peace. […]Rating: 8.6/10 (14 votes cast)…