RSS and NOAA and NASA are on the same page
Tristanc and MJP argue we are not in a pause. mmm who do we believe?
How many different datasets and different measurement techniques does one need to accept that we are in a PAUSE!
Combined with different modelling techniques explaining why or reaffirming the observations of other datasets for the reasons of the PAUSE. They actually tell us why in the opinion of these NASA RSS and NOAA scientist the models got it WRONG
But hey hoe along comes the ship bucket and ship engine theory and all below is now irrelevant
Here we show that RSS has confirmed the global pause by observing many many different source of data sets and many papers that explain why we are in a pause. You will be surprised as to who agrees as to why we are in the pause. Gavin Schmidt for one!
No doubt Tristanc and Mjp will commence the ad hom and tell us that it is being interpreted wrong. The messenger will be shot but the sources of the information will remain with their creditbilty in tact. NOAA, NASA and RSS
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/
Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.
...
....there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the
IPCC AR5
simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets.
As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences.
Any errors in the forcings data input to the model can lead to errors in the output. A simple case of garbage in -- garbage out.
The plot shows that the measured temperature rise is
within the envelope of model predictions
up until the late 2000’s. After that time, observed temperatures are sometimes less than any model prediction
and are clearly different than the mainstream model behavior.
Validation of increased natural aerosols is just gold!
No less than 3 papers by known warmist explaining this!
Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
This is GOLD by Gavin Schmidt explaining why we are having the pause. Modelling is not getting it right he says!
Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature,
This is gold
Stratospheric Water Vapor:
The amount of water vapor in the stratosphere has also decreased since 2000, which cancels the effects of increased CO2 (Solomon et al 2010), and reduces the warming signal. It is unclear whether this reduction in vapor constitutes a forcing term, or whether the reduced stratospheric water vapor is a poorly understood negative feedback term. Injection of water vapor into the stratosphere occurs only in the most intense deep convection events, which typically occur only in regions with the highest sea surface temperatures, the tropics. The distribution of the regions of high temperature can be changed by other climate factors, and thus by anthropogenic forcing.
Either water vapour is decreasing or Methane is decreasing. Take a pick fellas!
Because we are informed that in the settled science that intense deep convection i.e hurricanes and cyclones are getting worse. Clearly they are not as observed and it is clear that neither is Methane because we are told that Cyclones and Hurricanes are getting worse. Take your pick as to which is declining. LOL
Many recently published papers describe an increase in heat subduction into the deep ocean. The idea is this -- increased trade winds cause increased turbulence in the upper ocean.
