If there is no global warming pause?

1. Because the pause is only in some data sets/fractions of the information. Over all, it is at best a slow-down, not a true pause. Most of it is probably a matter of cycles like the PDO taking the heat under the ocean where we can't easily measure it. If we're still in a "pause" once we're in a surface-warming phase of the PDO, then we'll talk...

2. Because climate is *very complicated*. It takes many, many factors to make any given weather event.

3. Because scientists don't fully and completely understand climate, so we're kind of at a point where, when we're trying to explain something novel or unexpected, a lot of people will hawk their pet theories whether or not they meaningfully explain the situation.

On 2, I have an analogy cribbed from a response to one of my questions, that may help you understand it a bit.

It's a hot day in summer. You're standing in the sun, you're wearing a bathing suit, you just got out of the pool, and there's a breeze blowing. Do you feel warm or cold? If you feel warm, how can you feel warm while wearing practically nothing, and standing in the breeze dripping wet? If you feel cold, how can you feel cold standing in the sun on a hot summer day? The answer, obviously, is that the things making you cold don't *eliminate* the things making you warm, and vice versa, and no *single* factor determines, by itself, how warm or cold you are. Instead, it's the sum of all those things together that determines how warm or cold you are.

The planet's the same, only more so.

Well at least ChemFlunky is willing to put a testable hypothesis on the table, something that would cause a change of mind. Now how about some skeptics. If we start to see temperatures go up again, would that change your mind?

Now CF, how are you defining negative PDO and positive PDO? For example, is your statement just that negative PDO caused the slowdown, or that the slowdown is a sign of negative PDO? If it is the latter, then positive PDO with low temperatures is impossible.

Also, isn't it possible that positive PDO caused the warming as well?

GaryF has gone a step beyond declaring 'there is no pause because we have record temperatures or it's in the oceans' to saying 'The temperature levels are irrelevant. There is only a pause if CO2 stops being emitted.' Under his scenario, there can be global cooling and still we have anthropogenic CO2 warming. I guess it's like a fire in Alaska.

In addition, let me add one more to the mix. StefanBoltzmann says that warmer bodies emit more heat into space. So the warming is being emitted into space.

Ha! Ha! Good old Jeff M, "The 'pause' is dependent on what data set you use." Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I told you all he was a chart flipper. "Oh, you proved that one wrong, so I have a new one." Ha! Ha!

Those were his own words folks! You wonder when he is going to grow up and catch on.

In direct answer to the question: Because it is like a bank robber. He probably has a thousand reasons to commit a crime. These fellows are so good at lying, they can't stop.

There can only be an AGW pause if there is a pause in the in the release of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere. Multiple factors contribute to temperature. It is a straight-forward concept that that nevertheless it seems to befuddle weak-minded Deniers. But, then, most people do not shamelessly flaunt their stupidity with the same prideful arrogance as Deniers, either.

====

sagebrush --

<<Ha! Ha! Good old Jeff M, "The 'pause' is dependent on what data set you use." Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I told you all he was a chart flipper. "Oh, you proved that one wrong, so I have a new one." Ha! Ha!<<

The 'pause' is dependent on how you define it. Deniers define pause to mean no AGW which, as usual, makes them both stupid and dishonest.

But, then, you still cannot define science. I guess that is what makes you a 'true' scientist, huh?

From who, Kimberly Ruble a reporter on some rag called the Liberty Voice, she refers to 1998 as the warmest year and the pause since, when 2005 and 2010 where warmer than 1998.

There is also some very careful wording which I'm guessing you missed

"A new research study has shown that volcanoes could be linked to global warming pauses" a nice empty statement that could mean anything past pauses in warming are certainly linked to volcanic eruptions, they are certainly thought to have palyed a part in the LIA which deniers try to blame just on Sunspots.

The story also mentions "new research" but never gives a source for that. Pinatubo (which does get a mention) and what activity have we had since Pinatubo that would explain the denier claim of a "pause" I do note the one scientist quoted refers to a slowing in warming but that is not a pause in the way deniers are trying to claim.

Deniers tried something similar a few years ago when they made some wild claims about the stopping or even reversal of the decline in the glacial loss in the Himalaya's when in fact the very report they where using said that slow than had been projected (but they where still melting) so the melt had neither stopped or reversed.

Deniers have also repeatedly done this with Arctic sea ice info, every small upswing is a recovery yet all the downswings are ignored.

I do wonder why, when deniers keep doing this sort of thing they are surprised when they are called on it.

P.S. on the scale of eruptions of those mentioned in your story Pinatubo is a VEI 6 while Kasatochi is a VEI4 that is a 100th of the power, Merapi was also a VEI 4 so both combined had just 1/50th of the eruptive power of pinatubo

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=263250

edit to young_jedii: Those like maxx don't even try to hide their ignorance he lists the Montreal Protocol as a contribution/excuse for the claimed pause.

But that relates to the efforts to reduce CFC's back in the early 90's

we expect little from maxx and he delivers (little) I note another denier (or was it the same one) made the same mistake yesterday.

Why is it so hard for you to actually listen to what is said?

The 'pause' is dependent on what data set you use. And the 'pause' only occurs for surface temperatures. You have to measure the entire system as well as the energy flux in and out of the system. There is no pause in the decrease in outbound energy. There is a pause in the surface temperature record. Giving your previous statements you ignore all the data that shows where the energy has gone, you ignore the data that shows there is a increasing energy imbalance, and you only pay attention to what you think shows you what you want.

This is truly funny, why are deniers asking realists to justify something that deniers have invented references to 'the pause' comes from denier blogs as do the excuses Maxx lists. Where are the links to real sources I see none in the several denier replies to this.

You cannot "pause" the weather.

Maybe because nobody knows for sure.

There are now at least 7 different Warmist excuses for the 'pause' (that does not exist).

1) Low Solar Activity (I actually agree with this one - but this is not CO2 in control, is it?)

2) The oceans ate the warming

3) Chinese coal did it

4) The Montreal Protocol save the day (but it will come back, send your money to Gore NOW!!)

5) Volcanic aerosols are to blame (three cheers for Volcanoes !!)

6) Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming (whatever that means)

7) Slowing of Pacific trade winds

But my favorite is still polar vortex that got bent out of shape.

-----------------------

If people are that worried about global warming then why not hold your breath for the rest of your life and stick a tampax up your as so you don't release any methane in to the atmosphere , because each and every person is polluting if you think of it logically . Lmao