Sheldon Walker offers a “compromise” about the global warming “pause”

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:

Global Warming Rates (by request)

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.

HUGE Problem with Jevrejeva et al. Sea Level Data

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.

Surface Temperature and Satellite Temperature

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.

What Donald Trump will Never Understand

Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

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.

How to FAKE a “Pause” in Global Warming

Climate deniers love to declare a “pause” in global warming. What they don’t seem to care for is finding out the truth about whether or not it’s real. When it becomes so obvious global warming hasn’t paused that claiming it’s still paused becomes untenable, they’ll declare that it did — for a while, at least — and that it has already begun another “pause” — with the same amount of real evidence as before. None, that is.

No problem! Just fake it. But how? All you fellas out there with deniers to impress, it’s easy to do, just follow these steps.

Is CO2 Still Accelerating?

Not only is the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere on the rise, the rise itself has been getting faster — so CO₂ concentration has been accelerating. A reader recently asked whether or not there’s any sign of its increase flattening out, or even stopping its acceleration.

Here’s the CO₂ data from Mauna Loa:

2017 Temperature Summary

RealClimate did a brief post about the latest global temperature data, just released. A reader comment says, “I think it would be a good idea to publish graphs with the influence of El Nino, etc, removed, if this is possible.”

Happy to oblige.

Where’s the “red team”?

Climate deniers, including EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, keep talking about how they want a “red team/blue team” debate about climate change. So far … nothing.

I don’t expect it to happen at all. Why? Because the “red team” would actually have to commit to scientific claims. As long as climate deniers sit on the sidelines and snipe, they can say anything they want, no matter how idiotic, and believe they can avoid consequences. They can even deny that they said it in the first place.

But if they were an “official” EPA “red team” they’d have to make their claims part of the public record. They might even be expected to stand by their claims. Then, when their truly moronic arguments are not just refuted but shown to be truly moronic, it would be the death-knell for the entire climate denial machine.

I expect Scott Pruitt to keep promising a “red team/blue team” exercise, to keep saying it’ll happen “soon.” I don’t expect it actually to happen, ever. It’s the climate deniers who refuse to either “put up” or “shut up.”