the reason when the pause shows the models... failed is reiterated here. and i will post the spiegle article next for reference. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/matt-ridley-in-the-wsj-whatever-happened-to-global-warming/ When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.” We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.” Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
Here is a consensus case in point: The book Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), is a collection of criticisms of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Published in 1931, it contains short essays from 28 authors, and published excerpts from 19 more. The rest of the 100 against Einstein was a list of 53 people who were also opposed to his theory of relativity for various reasons. When asked about this book, Einstein retorted with this: “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/how-scientific-consensus-ended-up-with-a-bad-reputation/
You seemed to understand stats well? first of all the models were trained on that old data...we are concerned about how the models work on the live data. The models projected that when co2 goes up in the manner it has... temperature must go up. Then they run their models. They look to see how often their models do not project any warming for a period of time. They then use standard deviations to evaluate. No warming for over 17 years is very far out in terms of standard deviations. As the article says the results fall outside the 95% level. Models are considered failures when results fall outside the 2.5% standard dev. Therefore the models have failed. .
The earth getting hotter at an increasing rate. There is no pause, at all, in the rapid warming of the earth. This is due to the 40% increase of the earth's most important greenhouse gas.
Great moments in climate science: “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” Oh this is hilarious. In a “Back To The Future” sort of moment, this press release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research claims they could have forecast “the pause”, if only they had the right tools back then. Yes, having tools of the future would have made a big difference in these inconvenient moments…
Global Warming and the Feynman test By Tom Trinko Modern climate fear-mongering is the latest example of the prostitution of science in the service of liberal ideology. Were polymath Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman alive today I suspect he’d be condemning the whole climate conspiracy as a gross abuse of the good name of science. Here’s how Feynman described real science: "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” (emphasis added) http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/global_warming_and_the_feynman_test.html
So let's recap CO2 causing warming BUT the warming causes cooling So should I be shopping for summer clothes or winter cloths?