New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!

AGW isn’t about science…it’s about faith.

@Tom: Science is not about consensus. Science is about being able to reproduce results. If you recall, Galileo said the Earth revolved around the Sun while the consensus was that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The consensus was wrong.

The AGW activists credit the low solar activity with a “pause” in warming, but do not credit the solar activity for any warming. That premise lacks reason as does your post!

@Randy:

Science is not about consensus. Science is about being able to reproduce results. If you recall, Galileo said the Earth revolved around the Sun while the consensus was that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The consensus was wrong.

Wow, Randy. I don’t even know where to start. You do realize the consensus in Galileo’s time about the Sun revolving around the Earth wasn’t a scientific consensus based upon thousands of peer reviewed studies, I assume? I believe that consensus was based upon religion, the dogmatic adherents of which tend to resist scientific conclusions that clash with their faith, even in our time. No matter how y0u try and parse it, you’ve aligned yourself against the scientific consensus on global warming. Since there is no real research being published to disprove the consensus, the skeptics simply state that the science hasn’t proven it to their satisfaction. I’d be curious if there’s any other branch of science you approach with such open hostility and heightened suspicion. How did you arrived at this conclusion about climate science, while presumably taking other scientific consensuses for granted?

As for reproducing results, the models used by climate scientists do reproduce them, initially through hindcasting, and then later, in real time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time – usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate – or “smooth out” – single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

Tom
very good reading your page,
you should be aware for comming here often,
that RANDY know already more than you on climate,AND ON SOME FALSE SCIENTIS’S PREDICTIONS,
ON CLIMATE AND on magnetic interference
between sun and the earth magnetic field, and what ever else you study,
RANDY HAS SHOWN HIS KNOWLEDGE TO US MANY TIMES FOR US TO BELIEVE WHAT HE SAIS,
BEFORE ANYONE ELSE,
BYE

JIM CRANE
YES,