Sheldon Walker commented on my most recent post about his most recent post. It began thus:
Sheldon Walker | February 7, 2018 at 12:10 am | Reply
Sheldon Walker: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!
I’ve got to give you credit; you do have a sense of humor.
Sheldon Walker decided to write a post suggesting “A possible compromise on global warming slowdowns and pauses.” He even offers the conciliatory admission “So we are effectively arguing about different things. This means that we could both be right (or we could both be wrong).”
Here’s what his “compromise” sounds like to me:
A reader asked for the actual rates at which various global temperature data sets (featured in this post) are increasing, after one removes the estimated impact of ENSO (the el Niño southern oscillation), volcanic eruptions, and solar variations.
I welcome such requests, but caution strongly that I can’t fill them all, or even most of them. It’s too much work. But in this case, it’s a pretty simple request and I’ll go for it.
Global sea level before the satellite era is estimated from individual tide gauge records, which are combined to reconstruct a global average. One of the reconstructions climate deniers love best is from Jevrejeva et al., and the reason is obvious: because it gives a result they like.
But there are problems with the methodology used by Jevrejeva et al. HUGE problems.
One of the myths about temperature data is the ludicrous notion that the data for atmospheric temperature from satellites are better than the surface data from thermometers. We’ve heard this from people who should know better, like John Christy and Judith Curry, and climate denier politicians like Ted Cruz. The problem is, it just ain’t so.
But before I get to that —
I know I’ve posted about the “pause that never was” quite a bit lately, and how desperate climate deniers are to hold on to this figment of their imagination. I can’t help but share with you the most revealing comment about the “pause that never was” that I’ve seen in a long time (maybe ever). In a post on the WUWT blog about the latest satellite data from UAH, the very first comment was this:
RH February 1, 2018 at 10:03 am
Do we start a new pause? Or does the temperature lower enough to continue the old pause?
God forbid you should wait for enough actual data before declaring a new pause. Even if this is a case of “Poe’s Law,” it worked … as the follow-up comments illustrate. Climate deniers aren’t just desperate. They’re delusional.
When it comes to global warming, recent years have been so hot that it worries even those who deny the problem exists.
No one more desperately needs global warming to end than those most against doing anything about it. That’s why they cling so tight to the notion of a “pause” in global warming, a “pause” that was never more than a false impression, hoping others would believe the myth that it had all somehow stopped. Its death by thermometer has hit them hard.