Newest Published Pause Excuse: It Never Happened!

This is not a new excuse: it’s number 5 on the list of global warming pause excuses. This is just a new attempt to explain the Pause away

(Takepart) It has been a bad week for global warming skeptics.

On top of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations’ announcement that 2015 will almost certainly beat 2014 as the hottest year on record (not to mention the U.K. Met’s projectiont hat 2016 will smash heat records),…

Interesting. They’re already telling us what they plan to do prior to actually having data. Science! And it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

….new research out of Stanford University is trashing climate skeptics’ “hiatus” theory, which claims there was a 15-year lull in rising global temperatures between 1998 and 2013.

The paper, published Thursday in in the journal Climatic Change, looked at a comprehensive set of papers, statistics and historical records to see if temperatures really stopped rising around 1998, for about 15 years—what many have dubbed the climate change “pause” or “hiatus.”

Turns out it was just a statistical error, said Noah Diffenbaugh, climate scientist at Stanford and coauthor of the study.

The “statistical error” thing isn’t new, either.

First, the data points were misleading. In a study released in June, NOAA officials reexamined their ocean temperature points from buoy measurements. They found that for the past couple of decades, their buoys had been returning cooler temperature readings than the measurements gathered by ships in the same are. When they reworked the data, they found that the rate of warming (about .116 degrees Celsius per decade) was nearly identical to the past five decades.

To cover their bases, lead researcher Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and Earth system science at Stanford, said the team combined NOAA’s old and corrected measurements to see if a climate pause could be detected.

In other words, they didn’t like the actual raw data, so they changed it. They also went on to use a “statistical” method, whereby they manufacture out of nothing, er, extrapolate, data in areas that have no measurements.

It’s cute how the Cult of Climastrology works so darned hard to protect their cult. At the end of the day, even this fails to disprove the utter failure of their computer models, which predicted fast rising temperatures. Even if we are to believe that 2014 was the Hottest Evah!!!!!, it was by hundreds of a degree. And that data had issues, to the point where they admitted there was only a 38% chance they were right. But, it would still be below the original models.

Keep trying, Warmists. And give up your own fossil fuels usage.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Newest Published Pause Excuse: It Never Happened!”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Even the Know-NothingDenier Republican Party is too embarrassed to claim it’s not warming. As predicted, they’ve switched from denying warming to, ironically, claiming we’ve waited too long and can’t make a difference. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Teach is like the Japanese soldiers found still defending their post years after WWII ended.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Hell, that’s all you do, ‘lil one.

  3. Jeffery says:


    I’m always open to being corrected. Granted, you’re not good at it, being fact-challenged yourself.

  4. Phil Taylor says:

    What about Nasa stats? What’s the excuse for that lack of warming?

  5. Jeffery says:


    To what NASA stats are you referring?

    And “excuse” is a loaded Denier term. Scientists call what they offer, “explanations”.

  6. JGlanton says:

    Well if it says so in the journal “Climatic Change”, it must be true.

    Here is a journal that will publish any paper that pretends that measurement uncertainties only have a warming effect on future climate projections. The negative half of uncertainties don’t exist among the AGW crowd. It’s like an economist writing “fuel oil consumption could either go up or down this winter because we are uncertain about the weather, so buy oil now because the prices will certainly go up”.

    Although even “Climatic Change” does have minimal standards. They rejected Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Hayhoe, et al’s latest 97% consensus BS paper which was just an arbitrary attempt to smear the remainder 3% of papers.

  7. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffery;

    What is the “explanation” then for the RSS and UAH data showing (little warming, no warming, or cooling over the past 15 to 19 years and in contradiction to the dataset of NOAA? The explanation in this articles does not explain the data of these satellites.


  8. Jeffery says:


    You’re asking why the RSS satellite data gives different results from the other datasets. I don’t know. The satellites don’t measure surface temperature, they measure radiation wavelengths well above the surface and convert the data to something called a brightness temperature. It must not be as easy as a thermometer since skeptics Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer had to go back and correct their UAH calculations years ago (ironically it was RSS that discovered the UAH errors). The most likely explanation is the adjustments, corrections and calculations that must be done for the satellite measurements (it’s falsely stated that the satellite data is less corrected than the thermometer data – the opposite is true) may introduce bias.

    It could be the middle troposphere is not warming as fast as the surface. But that is also unlikely.

    Since the satellites came on line (1979) the per decade warming for the major datasets are (in degrees C):

    NOAA 0.15
    GISTEMP 0.16
    HADCRUT 0.16
    BEST 0.17
    RSS 0.12
    UAH 0.14

    For the past 20 years the 4 major surface datasets show 0.135 C warming per decade. UAH satellite shows 0.125 and RSS satellite shows 0.028 warming.

    Mssrs. Monckton and Teach now prefer the RSS data, for obvious reasons.

    All things considered, the surface datasets, rate of melting of ice sheets, the ocean measurements, it’s probably pretty safe to conclude the Earth is warming.

  9. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeff:

    Thank you for the time to do crunch these numbers. It IS safe to conclude that the earth WAS warming, but it may not be safe to conclude it is still warming. If you measure from 1979, (the end of a cooling cycle) and go to 1998 the end of a warming cycle the earth did in fact warm. No one debates that. However, after 1998 the temperature did not continue to warm. The ice has also rebounded since 2012. Therefore, is the warming and cooling a result of natural varience or something else. Since we are supposed to be in a cooling cycle now, the same number crunch from 1998 the warmest year on record according to satellites till now shows the following.

    NOAA 0.118
    RSS -0.029
    UAH 0.076 (1998 to 2016) and -0.025 from 2010 an el nino year till now.

    Selecting a year before or after gets slightly different results. Also, we must remember that there is a +/- factor. The temperature increase or decrease is well within the error rate. We are talking about 100th’s of a degree here.

    >You’re asking why the RSS satellite data gives different results from the other datasets. I don’t know.

    I do! It is because land/sea does not intensly measured as well as satellite.

    Now the big question you must ask yourself. Be true to yourself. Based on your own data shown here, do you really think that this degree of warming is causing the climate to change? Do you really think it is causing great droughts and flooding, Species extinction etc.

Pirate's Cove