Causes and implications of it.
The biggest implication is that the models are worse than useless as a guide to policy on climate. And places like California are taking a wrecking ball to their economy for nothing.
6 thoughts on “The Pause”
Comments are closed.
It’s a pity reality disagrees with your conclusion
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAPHCI
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CARGSP_Max_630_378.png
Both indicators of economic activity and GDP show California recovering.
What a stupid comment. Growth would be much greater if Sacramento didn’t have its boot on business’s neck, just as it would in the country if Obama wasn’t doing the same thing. It’s not fast enough growth to provide jobs for those who need them.
The Economy of California is growing, how slow growth is a wrecking ball,
seems a bit hysterical.
“Why are we in a pause?” isn’t quite the right question. The right question is to reconsider why we had the rise for awhile. Evidence is overwhelming that the CO2 driven models don’t have the right answer.
When your computer model doesn’t agree with reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.
There are lies, damn lies, and computer models.
Yes. It is a form of Newton’s third law. Every excuse offered for the ‘pause’ generates an equal and opposite potential explanation for the rise.
Meanwhile, it is now blindingly apparent that the rise from 1910-1940 was, for all practical purposes, precisely the same as the rise from 1970-2000. Since the former was not caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, it is apparent that neither was the latter. The only thing carrying AGW forward at this point in time is inertia. I expect it, at some point, to grind to a sudden halt as static friction kicks in. That will be a happy day.