No substantive evidence for 'pause' in global warming

There is no substantive evidence for a 'pause' or 'hiatus' in global warming and the use of those terms is therefore inaccurate, new research from the University of Bristol, UK has found.

The researchers, led by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of Bristol's School of Experimental Psychology and the Cabot Institute, examined 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 2009 and 2014 that specifically addressed the presumed 'hiatus' and found no consistent or agreed definition of such a 'hiatus', when it began and how long it lasted.

The researchers then compared the distribution of decadal warming trends during the 'hiatus' -- as defined by the same scientific articles -- against other trends of equivalent length in the entire record of modern global warming. The analysis showed that all definitions of the 'hiatus' in the literature were found to be unexceptional in the context of other trends.

The researchers also found that, if sample size is small, the 'hiatus' will always appear to be present. For example, anyone making a claim for a 'hiatus' of 12 years or below (a claim made by a third of the articles studied) will find one, not because something new and different is happening, but because small sample sizes provide insufficient statistical power for the detection of trends.

Professor Lewandowsky said: "Our study raises the question: why has so much research been framed around the concept of a 'hiatus' when it does not exist? The notion of a 'pause' or 'hiatus' demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124081510.htm

Interesting that he admits this...


'...small sample sizes provide insufficient statistical power for the detection of trends...'


While most of the historical data being used to support the argument for the existence of global warming/climate change is of either 'small sample size', unreliable accuracy, or speculation as the data simply does not exist!!!

Oh dear another Tommy epic fail lol

Seriously, how much more scientific evidence do you need for it to sink in?

All of the current so called 'scientific evidence' is based on data being of either 'small sample size', unreliable accuracy, or speculation as the data simply does not exist!!!