Re: “I think that is wrong. He is repetitious, but so are most of us. He mistakes “disputation” for “debunking” […]”
Evidence-free commentary and grand-standing, as usual.
Re: “Whether “warming” did or did not persist through the “hiatus”, and how much warming or cooling will occur in the next 20 years are not yet known.”
There is not a statistically significant difference between the warming from from 1979 – 1998 vs. the warming rate from 1998 onwards. That’s been shown in paper after paper. And the troposphere continued to warm, as did the deeper ocean. You’ve been shown evidence on this over and over. The fact that you continue to make your false claims on this subject, despite having being shown evidence on this, is remarkable. Actually, it’s predictable.
Re: “The “hiatus” has been well-described in peer-reviewed journals”
A poorly-defined “hiatus” has been mentioned repeatedly. If you don’t give a statistically rigorous definition, then you end up with trivialities where you can claim a hiatus occurred for two years, because 1999 or 2000 were not warmer than 1998 for the surface temperature record. See, for instance, what Javier is doing by cherry-picking 2016 as his start-point for a trend.
If all a paper wants to do is claim that there was a non-statistically-significant change in the rate of surface warming, and they want to examine the shorter-term factors affect that change, then fine. One could do that for a change lasting 2 years, as in my previous example. But the moment you try to claim that there was a robust, statistically significant change in the rate of warming, then the notion of a “pause” or “hiatus” falls apart.
The game you, and so many other contrarians, play is that you conflate papers that discuss a “pause” or “hiatus” in a non-statistically-significant non-robust sense, with there being a hiatus in a robust statistically significant sense. As explained by the paper I cited before:
“Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes
[…]
Among the common definitions of pause/hiatus are: (1) a statistically significant change in the rate of global warming, as measured by changes to the heat balance of the planet; (2) a statistically significant change in the surface temperature record; (3) a non-statistically significant change in the rate of GMST [global mean surface temperature] change; and (4) Divergence between GMST predictions (from climate modes) and actual GMST measurements. Unfortunately, these definitions are often conflated and their separate identities must be maintained.
So, has there been a pause in global warming? The answer would be mistakenly “yes” only if one defines the “global warming” only by GMST changes (definition 3 above).”
That fits with the conclusion of paper after paper that applied rigorous statistical analysis to the notion of a “pause” or “hiatus”, while examining different temperature analyses. For instance:
“A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence”
“Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
“Debunking the climate hiatus”
“Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature”
“Change points of global temperature”
“The “pause” in global warming: turning a routine fluctuation into a problem for science”
“The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?”
“Has there been a hiatus?”
“An apparent hiatus in global warming?”
“A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
“On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”
“Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”
Re: “All claims about the future are based on some models or different model about the past, and none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”.”
You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback). But you simply repeat the false claim that there have been no confirmed predictions anyway. It’s clear that no amount of evidence is ever going to change your mind. And there’s a term for that…