No Global Warming for 18 years 4 months now

[rushmc 23]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/06/el-nio-or-ot-the-pause-lengthens-again/

Quote

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months since December 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 4 months, or 220 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Given that the Paris summit is approaching and most “world leaders” are not being told the truth about the Pause, it would be a great help if readers were to do their best to let their national negotiators and politicians know that unexciting reality continues to diverge ever more spectacularly from the bizarre “settled-science” predictions on which Thermageddon was built.

the trend continues

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 896]

The irony of your comment is off the charts.

[lawrocket 3]

rushmc

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/06/el-nio-or-ot-the-pause-lengthens-again/

Quote

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months since December 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 4 months, or 220 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Given that the Paris summit is approaching and most “world leaders” are not being told the truth about the Pause, it would be a great help if readers were to do their best to let their national negotiators and politicians know that unexciting reality continues to diverge ever more spectacularly from the bizarre “settled-science” predictions on which Thermageddon was built.

the trend continues

A few points:

This is one dataset. There are others that disagree

Second: even the other datasets showed last year as warmer than 1998 by what is effectively margin of error. a tenth of a degree of warming over 18 years isn't something to fear.

Third: the whole "world leaders aren't being told the truth" deal. First, truth is a misused term that when I hear it now in this context I find myself wondering what is being sold. Additionally, that world leaders aren't being told what you can find quite simply is a problem. They know it. They see it.

Finally, world leaders are seeing it. Guess why the Paris conference proposals are to do pretty much jack and shit. Because the nations of the world are realizing that they have time. This isn't something that requires an extreme solution in the next five years to prevent catastrophe. So the world is basically using this to figure out what sort of framework the next conference should have.

This leads to some reconsideration. If worldwide communism and command economy was the goal the the delegates would be even more hardcore about this than they have been.

The world leadership knows of the problems. The world leadership is saying, "well, I'll be damned. It hasn't been what we've been told. It was worth ruining the economy back twenty years ago when this was actually believable. But now evidence is coming in that proves pretty clearly by anyone with a damned objective kind that the observational data shows that no AGW cataclysm is on the horizon.

This doesn't mean there isn't an issue. But it is an issue that can be solved with cool deliberation. Sure, there will be pronouncements about horrors to keep the watermelons off their backs a bit but in he end it'll be as proxy to d as Copenhagen.

Expect to see a lot more arguments in the coming months and years that fossil fuels need to be stopped regardless of whether or not there is global warming from their use. Peak oil was the first battle against petrochemicals. Then it was oil spills. Then it was global warming. Then it was hurricanes and extreme weather. Then it was climate change.

What will be the next narrative theme?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

What will be the next narrative theme?

Water shortages?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 896]

Desalination to keep crops alive.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***

What will be the next narrative theme?

Water shortages?

That's been a theme. Five years ago it was the permanent drought in Texas. That was back when Cali was so flush with rain and snow that I was in Yosemite and there were waterfalls that hadn't been seen before. Peak flow for Merced River was the highest ever measured. And I remember people discussing that climate change means that the dry chaparral of California is changing to flora that can tolerate more water.

As bad as this drought is (yes, it's bad out here) I don't see it as worse that the late 80s or early 90s. Back then, Santa Barbara built a desalinization plant because the drought was permanent. Until it ended. Pretty much overnight. It was huge news that Bradbury Dam was actually spilling over.

This will end, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

The irony of your comment is off the charts.

the trend continues

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/

You would be near the bottom of the linked pyramid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 896]

I'm sorry, unlike yourself, I just cannot go around trusting random silly web sites like you do.
Whats up with that?

[billvon 3,116]

>shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months since December 1996.

Warmest years on record:

Year Anomaly
=== ====
2014 0.69
2010 0.66
2005 0.65
1998 0.64

Ready, set - DENY!

[rushmc 23]

normiss

I'm sorry, unlike yourself, I just cannot go around trusting random silly web sites like you do.
Whats up with that?

again

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 896]

Well in that case:
I'm sorry, unlike yourself, I just cannot go around trusting random silly web sites like you do.
Whats up with that?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months since December 1996.

Warmest years on record:

Year Anomaly
=== ====
2014 0.69
2010 0.66
2005 0.65
1998 0.64

Ready, set - DENY!

please refer to lawrockets responce

BTW
How many years worth of data is needed to decide what the normal temp should be set at?
And, as stated by even those who solidly support AWG , 2014 was not statisticaly warmer
But
given that something is needed to stop the bleeding, I am not surprised you keep using it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

normiss

Desalination to keep crops alive.

Desalination is for residential purposes. Problem is that desal plants are opposed by environmentalists. I am beginning to wonder whether they are opposed BECAUSE a of the benefits they provide instead of despite the benefits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>>Ready, set - DENY!

>And, as stated by even those who solidly support AWG , 2014 was not statisticaly warmer

Denial, right on schedule.

Remember back when you admitted the planet was warming? I guess you are back to being a type I denier.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

How many years worth of data is needed to decide what the normal temp should be set at?

Normal or average?

Quote

And, as stated by even those who solidly support AWG , 2014 was not statisticaly warmer

Define statistically. And warmer than what: average or this concept of normal you are throwing around?

Quote

given that something is needed to stop the bleeding, I am not surprised you keep using it

Standard idiotic oneliner to identify the poster.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>>Ready, set - DENY!

>And, as stated by even those who solidly support AWG , 2014 was not statisticaly warmer

Denial, right on schedule.

Remember back when you admitted the planet was warming? I guess you are back to being a type I denier.

At that time all I had to go on was the lies those who belive as you do provided
things change
Hell
Even Obama evolved
Remember?

Oh
And your petty little shot across the bow denial stuff is childish


but dont let that stop you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The studies I have found the most interesting with regards to the planets history of CO2 levels and temps have been ice core studies

Here is another

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months since December 1996.

Warmest years on record:

Year Anomaly
=== ====
2014 0.69
2010 0.66
2005 0.65
1998 0.64

Ready, set - DENY!

Different dataset. I rebuked Rush for posting a single dataset as proof. I'll do the same to you.

Tell the whole story and not just the part you agree with

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,588]

The main problem I see with desalination is the same as with nuclear power: there will be waste. And in the case of salt, just dumping it back into the ocean will change the ocean, eventually in ways that we don't like. If we can figure out early how not to do that, all the better. Then we won't have to perch the salt on top of the giant plastic trash island that we've created "because the ocean is so big."

It's almost certainly going to end up as part of the solution. But it shouldn't be anything but part

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

How many years worth of data is needed to decide what the normal temp should be set at?

Normal or average? take your pick

***And, as stated by even those who solidly support AWG , 2014 was not statisticaly warmer

Define statistically. And warmer than what: average or this concept of normal you are throwing around? I am not the one that has established what an average or normal temp should be but, .02 degrees is not a true statistical difference.

Quote

given that something is needed to stop the bleeding, I am not surprised you keep using it

Standard idiotic oneliner to identify the poster.

Another bottom of the pyriamid comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

normiss

I'm sorry, unlike yourself, I just cannot go around trusting random silly web sites like you do.
Whats up with that?

Well they are in the company newsletter so they have to be the Koch Gospel Truth

[billvon 3,116]

>things change

So your latest change is from a Type II to a Type I denier.

I expect that will change back again once you see something on the Internet.

[billvon 3,116]

>The main problem I see with desalination is the same as with nuclear power: there will
>be waste. And in the case of salt, just dumping it back into the ocean will change the
>ocean, eventually in ways that we don't like.

I don't think so. If ocean levels stay the same, then salinity should (roughly) stay the same. If they rise, of course, then salinity should decrease, as fresh water starts diluting the existing sea water.

However near big desalination plants you might well see local effects.

[normiss 896]

Interesting.
I wasn't aware of that...I might have misunderstood a story I read about desal and the almond industry then.

[lawrocket 3]

wmw999

The main problem I see with desalination is the same as with nuclear power: there will be waste. And in the case of salt, just dumping it back into the ocean will change the ocean, eventually in ways that we don't like. If we can figure out early how not to do that, all the better. Then we won't have to perch the salt on top of the giant plastic trash island that we've created "because the ocean is so big."

It's almost certainly going to end up as part of the solution. But it shouldn't be anything but part

Wendy P.

I don't think the salt is a big deal at all considering how much water is evaporated daily. Perhaps the salt can even be harvested like they do in SF bay.

The problem is the energy required to operate a desalination plant it does take a lot of power. I don't understand why they can't have a generator use the energy from waves and tides to generate a lot of the power. It would seem a simple thing to engineer that would get at least some power. From the ocean. That it's right next to

My wife is hotter than your wife.