2014 Global Temperatures

[nflwxman]

I'm just pulling from the abstract rather than the graph:

 

Reasons for the apparent pause in the rise of global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) after the turn of the century has been a mystery, undermining confidence in climate projections^1, 2, 3. Recent climate model simulations indicate this warming hiatus originated from eastern equatorial Pacific cooling⁴ associated with strengthening of trade winds⁵. Using a climate model that overrides tropical wind stress anomalies with observations for 1958–2012, we show that decadal-mean anomalies of global SAT referenced to the period 1961–1990 are changed by 0.11, 0.13 and −0.11 °C in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, respectively, without variation in human-induced radiative forcing. They account for about 47%, 38% and 27% of the respective temperature change.

 

 

The confusion may be coming from the difference between trends and averages.  The -0.11C pull on global temperatures in the 2003-2012 period you mention is related to average of the whole period and not the trend between 2003-2012.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm just pulling from the abstract rather than the graph:

 

Reasons for the apparent pause in the rise of global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) after the turn of the century has been a mystery, undermining confidence in climate projections^1, 2, 3. Recent climate model simulations indicate this warming hiatus originated from eastern equatorial Pacific cooling⁴ associated with strengthening of trade winds⁵. Using a climate model that overrides tropical wind stress anomalies with observations for 1958–2012, we show that decadal-mean anomalies of global SAT referenced to the period 1961–1990 are changed by 0.11, 0.13 and −0.11 °C in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, respectively, without variation in human-induced radiative forcing. They account for about 47%, 38% and 27% of the respective temperature change.

 

 

The confusion may be coming from the difference between trends and averages.  The -0.11C pull on global temperatures in the 2003-2012 period you mention is related to average of the whole period and not the trend between 2003-2012.

 

 

I'm not following...in reference to what? The 1990s? 2000? Their graph said that the -0.11C in the 2003-2012 period actually verified as -0.06C...so they seem to definitely be implying the trend from 2003-2012, esp since the actual Hadcrut4 trend is very close to that (-0.05C). I need to find something where hadcrut4 verifies as close to "-0.06C" as possible to make sense of the graph, and the trend of that dataset from 2003-2012 is the only one I can come up with. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

But lets revisit the other claim in the abstract and forget about the graph discrepency. So according to their math...the trade winds alone are a -0.11C pull in the 2000s. The overall warming in the 2000s was +0.09C if you go 2000-2010. The trade winds account for 27% of the variance. The non-trade wind component of the trend is +0.20. In order to make the math work, their AGW component must be higher than 0.2C...closer to +0.25C actually and then the residual would be something like solar at -0.05C. This would satisfy the components adding up to the +0.09C and also having 27% be from trade winds. That sounds great until we realize that their AGW component in the 1990s is like +0.1C. The jump between decades isn't exactly believable. Maybe I'm missing something again...but if that math is right, then it doesn't pass the smell test. Having that large a jump.

 

But again, the paper is paywalled, so I can't read all the details. They would probably shed light on the questions I have.

[nflwxman]

I'm not following...in reference to what? The 1990s? 2000? Their graph said that the -0.11C in the 2003-2012 period actually verified as -0.06C...so they seem to definitely be implying the trend from 2003-2012, esp since the actual Hadcrut4 trend is very close to that (-0.05C). I need to find something where hadcrut4 verifies as close to "-0.06C" as possible to make sense of the graph, and the trend of that dataset from 2003-2012 is the only one I can come up with. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

But lets revisit the other claim in the abstract and forget about the graph discrepency. So according to their math...the trade winds alone are a -0.11C pull in the 2000s. The overall warming in the 2000s was +0.09C if you go 2000-2010. The trade winds account for 27% of the variance. The non-trade wind component of the trend is +0.20. In order to make the math work, their AGW component must be higher than 0.2C...closer to +0.25C actually and then the residual would be something like solar at -0.05C. This would satisfy the components adding up to the +0.09C and also having 27% be from trade winds. That sounds great until we realize that their AGW component in the 1990s is like +0.1C. The jump between decades isn't exactly believable. Maybe I'm missing something again...but if that math is right, then it doesn't pass the smell test. Having that large a jump.

 

But again, the paper is paywalled, so I can't read all the details. They would probably shed light on the questions I have.

ORH,

 

I downloaded the paper, but can't share it since it's paywalled.  They break down the global temperature influence by 2 variables, T-ext, which is all external forcings (solar, volcanic, anthropogenic) and T-int, which is tradewind/ENSO variability.  They did have a lot of succuss predicting the actual decadal temperature based on this method.

 

They are suggesting that T-ext increased from 0.15C to 0.47C between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009.  Therefore, they are actually saying that without the ENSO component (T-int) that the temperature would have risen ~0.3-0.35 degrees C(versus the ~0.2C observed) in the 2000s.

 

Remember T-ext was dropped dramatically in the 1990s due to Pinatubo, which helps account for the large jump of the variable in the 2000s.  There's no mention of the impact of T-ext due to the eruption, but I would assume it would be somewhat sizable.

 

I didn't observe anything mentioned in the paper between 2003-2012.  It's clear they mention that the contribution of natural factors to global temperature deltas are shrinking rapidly every decade (meaning a future hiatus becomes very unlikely).

 

After review, I'm still a bit skeptical of the rapid increase in T-ext between the 2 decades.  However, if this is correct, it would validate climate model projections given the measured forcings and would be an interesting prospect for future warming.  Let me know if this explanation is clear.

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks for the response...it is easier to see what they did now.  

 

Yes, I definitely am skeptical of their claim of the increase in T-ext (the AGW component). Though, considering that their study is based on a CMIP5 model but applying the ENSO factor, I am not surprised.

 

Their T-ext for the 1980s is even lower. Their model basically dampens the AGW component to zero by the time you get to the 1970s.

[nflwxman]

Thanks for the response...it is easier to see what they did now.  

 

Yes, I definitely am skeptical of their claim of the increase in T-ext (the AGW component). Though, considering that their study is based on a CMIP5 model but applying the ENSO factor, I am not surprised.

 

Their T-ext for the 1980s is even lower. Their model basically dampens the AGW component to zero by the time you get to the 1970s.

 

Yes, keep in mind T-ext also takes into account Solar,Volcanoes, and human made aerosals.  It essentially means the aerosol forcing overwhelmed the AGW component in the 1960s, which is not entirely a controversial principal.

 

I'm a sucker for the statistical/physical hybrid approach they took in the paper though.

[chrisf97212]

I hear a lot about the ananomolous trade winds.  Any of you know or can point me in the right direction on these?  Specifically,  What is causing them? What is the baseline on these?  How far above baseline are they?  Are they a feedback from higher levels of CO2?  How far back do we have reliable measurements?   Thanks in advance.

[JBG]

I hear a lot about the ananomolous trade winds.  Any of you know or can point me in the right direction on these?  Specifically,  What is causing them? What is the baseline on these?  How far above baseline are they?  Are they a feedback from higher levels of CO2?  How far back do we have reliable measurements?   Thanks in advance.

I am not a pro-met. My educated guess is that so-called "cold phase" of the PDO, which favors La Niña over El Niño features stronger trade winds, which hold the warmer water from the western Pacific at bay. During "warm phase" the opposite occurs, trade winds weaken, and WWB's are more common.

[nflwxman]

I am not a pro-met. My educated guess is that so-called "cold phase" of the PDO, which favors La Niña over El Niño features stronger trade winds, which hold the warmer water from the western Pacific at bay. During "warm phase" the opposite occurs, trade winds weaken, and WWB's are more common.

That's pretty much right.  There is mounting evidence that the uneven heating of certain ocean basins are causing even more anomalous trade winds.  This may switch in an aggressive manner when the PDO enters it's positive decadal phase.

[JBG]

That's pretty much right.  There is mounting evidence that the uneven heating of certain ocean basins are causing even more anomalous trade winds.  This may switch in an aggressive manner when the PDO enters it's positive decadal phase.

My thinking is that AGW is much overrated.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weatherbell has stabilized around .225C for the dailies.  And the same for the monthly.

 

 

ENSO sub-surface continues to warm.  To bad a large area of where the warmest sub-surface waters are right now is not being observed. 

 

 

 

 

 

We can see the current Westerly wind burst over the central Pacific. 

 

 

Below is the forecast for 8 days from now.  By then we can see the Westerly wind burst has moved Eastwards but is stronger a bit longer in area as well. 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't understand Bob Tisdale's position on global warming.  He blames these ENSO caused jumps.  I have seen multiple people ask him if it is just ENSO then why are we not cooling at all.  He hasn't answered.

 

He is pretty adamant about discrediting the role AGW has in making these new records possible by enhancing the natural patterns one way or another. 

 

What is the mathematical odds of how often global ssts or even just NPAC ssts get this warm?  We know by observation global ssta since at least 1850 have never been this warm.  That is 164 years.  With proxies it's been at least 1000 year or longer.

 

So essentially Mr. Tisdale is saying this is a once in a 1000 or 1500 or 2000 year event? 

 

It would seem we are having these once in 1000+ years events over and over.

 

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/

 

Roy Spencer who I respect a lot for a skeptic or denier. Not really sure what he is.  Also joins in the straw-man agenda posts on his "global warming" blog. 

 

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/sept-21-nyc-the-peoples-frozen-climate-march/#comment-132921

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/september-snow-in-seven-states-over-seven-days/#comments

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

CPC finally updated sub-surface for the week.  It's not as warm obviously as the April wave.  But it's decent and covers almost the entire equatorial region.

 

[JBG]

I don't understand Bob Tisdale's position on global warming.  He blames these ENSO caused jumps.  I have seen multiple people ask him if it is just ENSO then why are we not cooling at all.  He hasn't answered.

During the last ENSO "cold-cycle" the cooling started hitting the media only around 1970. The early 1950's were downright toasty, at least in New York City area. We had no significant snowstorms, at least at the Kocin level, from the December 1948 event through the March 1956 event. Shades of the mid-1970's and 1980's through mid-1990's snow droughts.

As for summers, KNYC went over 100 in 1952-5 (4 in a row) and again in 1957 and, I think, 1959. Even the 2010-2 streak didn't come close. And before 2010 you'd have to go back to 2001 from a break of 100.

[nflwxman]

CPC finally updated sub-surface for the week.  It's not as warm obviously as the April wave.  But it's decent and covers almost the entire equatorial region.

 

Certainly a robust wave that could initiate a moderate Nino in a few weeks.  

 

As far as Bob Tisdale, for someone who looks at data and statistics everyday, he has certainly deluded himself very well (or is just misleading).   Where do people think all the additional heat that is causing elevated SSTs are coming from?  It's certainly not from the equatorial pacific..at least not yet.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Certainly a robust wave that could initiate a moderate Nino in a few weeks.  

 

As far as Bob Tisdale, for someone who looks at data and statistics everyday, he has certainly deluded himself very well (or is just misleading).   Where do people think all the additional heat that is causing elevated SSTs are coming from?  It's certainly not from the equatorial pacific..at least not yet.

 

Bob Tisdale doesn't think any of the warming is from AGW.  He thinks it's all from Nino's.

 

But as far as I have seen he has given no indication of why there is a heating imbalance and why there isn't equal cooling during Nina phases.

[Isotherm]

Bob Tisdale doesn't think any of the warming is from AGW.  He thinks it's all from Nino's.

 

But as far as I have seen he has given no indication of why there is a heating imbalance and why there isn't equal cooling during Nina phases.

 

 

So you're saying he believes 100% of the warming is induced by El Nino events and nothing else. Can you provide a link regarding this?

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-2/

 

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/untruths-falsehoods-fabrications-misrepresentations/

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/untruths-falsehoods-fabrications-misrepresentations-part-2/

 

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/

 

 

 

I honestly don't understand quite a bit of his broken circular logic.

 

 

One last quote from my book Who Turned on the Heat?:

During a multidecadal period when El Niño events dominate (a period when El Niño events are stronger, when they occur more often and when they last longer than La Niña events), more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific and more warm water than normal is transported by ocean currents toward the poles—with that warm water releasing heat to the atmosphere along the way. As a result, global sea surface and land surface temperatures warm during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate. They have to. There’s no way they cannot warm. Conversely, global temperatures cool during multidecadal periods when La Niña events are stronger, last longer and occur more often than El Niño events. That makes sense too because the tropical Pacific is releasing less heat and redistributing less warm water than normal then.

 

 

 

 

Look's like Bobs theory is not working out very well. 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy while puts out some nice graphics has convinced himself of some crazy convoluted crap that reality isn't backing up.  He is probably right about Nino's introducing a jump in global warming.  But his idea that La Nina's all balance it out is no where near what we are seeing in reality.

 

Which is why he plays around with all these little sub sets and comes up with bullshyt because the bottom line.  The end game graphic above the global ssta shatters his theory.

 

Why should you be interested?  The hypothesis of manmade global warming depends on manmade greenhouse gases being the cause of the recent warming. But the sea surface temperature record indicates El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 32 years, not manmade greenhouse gases.  Scroll back up to the discussion of the East Pacific versus the Rest of the World.  I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal.  That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alright so Bob again blames all of the record warming this summer on natural occurring factors.  This is happening after a string of 7-8 years in a row now with his theorized predominant La nina global cooling. 

 

Yet instead of any cooling at all.  We have shattered global sst anomalies.  Not only has there not been any cooling at all like Bob predicts. 

 

He never addresses that the Earths energy intake has to increase to match the so called string of nino warming.  A bunch of heat is released into the atmosphere and the Earth warms for a couple years.  In order for it to stay at that level or continue to warm whether it's slowly or not.  More heat has to be introduced into the system.  So now we reach a point where we have a hugely predominant La nina like regime since 2007 and we have seen no cooling.  In terms of global ssts we have seen major warming.  During Bob's la nina phases the Earth should have cooled and a lot because if his theory was right and things were equal cooling should have been on the order of magnitude of the previous warming.  Again.  No cooling has taken place. 

 

OHC has continued to rise.  And now global ssta are at record highs and global temps are pushing their records as well.

 

CLOSING

I’ve shown throughout this post that the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific warm in shifts, the results of naturally occurring processes:  ENSO and variations in sea level pressure.  Not too surprisingly, those are processes climate models still cannot simulate to this day. Climate models will one day be a valuable resource, but we’ll have to wait until modelers can simulate naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause warming of sea surfaces and the oceans to depth.  We may be in for a long wait.

With the unusual warming events taking place recently in the North Pacific, global sea surface temperatures are at record high levels. Alarmists will attempt to use that to advance a political agenda.  Unfortunately for those trying to advance those policies, climate models serve as the only support for human-induced global warming. Their not-very-illustrious climate models cannot explain why sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific have warmed at a much lower rate than anticipated during the satellite era, and the models cannot explain why the surfaces of the North Pacific stopped warming for almost ¼ of a century. See Animation 2.

 

 

 

 

 

I look forward to the "explanations" as the warming keeps coming and coming and coming.

[AvantHiatus]

[nflwxman]

I think the next 3 years will be pretty tough for skeptics in terms of explaining a natural cause for the continued warming.  Solar output is low, the PDO has flipped negative for several years, and climate modelers are able to recreate the "hiatus" with climate models seeded with a 3 degree C ECS.  The excuses are running thin.  At this point, I think the debate lies where ECS falls, as it's highly unlikely under 2 or over 4 degrees C.

 

 

low

[ORH_wxman]

I think the next 3 years will be pretty tough for skeptics in terms of explaining a natural cause for the continued warming.  Solar output is low, the PDO has flipped negative for several years, and climate modelers are able to recreate the "hiatus" with climate models seeded with a 3 degree C ECS.  The excuses are running thin.  At this point, I think the debate lies where ECS falls, as it's highly unlikely under 2 or over 4 degrees C.

 

 

 

 

They were also able to recreate much of the 20th century prior to the hiatus which made them confident that a hiatus wouldn't happen. We were accelerating the warming trend.  

 

Now, we have a study that uses a subset of 12 out of 262 CMIP 5 simulations that shows that these 12 were able to recreate the hiatus. They say that it would be normal for the mean to be well above the observations because the models didn't capture the natural variability in the mean. Yet, we're supposed to believe the ensemble mean for predictions? I guess this would be believable if we truly believe that the natural variability event we just had was more than 2 sigma.

 

The other study discussed earlier in this thread implies that natural variability masked about 0.3-0.35C of AGW warming...that same study implied that AGW was basically zero once you got back to the 1970s. That doesn't sound very believable...only if the aerosol component is very high. But then that creates its own set of problems...mostly that very high aerosol component should have meant more cooling than we saw in Pinatubo.

 

In short, I'm not convinced at all that using a model with a 3C sensitivity that recreates a hiatus by fine-tuning certain parameters is a robust way of validating the model going forward. We are basically trusting that we are going to warm at something around 0.5C per decade once we flip back to a positive ENSO regime. We are trusting that the natural variability event we saw happened to be so extreme, that only a handful of model runs could reproduce it. I don't buy it. Perhaps in another 10 years if we warm at your 0.25C, then I'll be more convinced.

 

For now, I am more inclined to believe the empirical evidence that suggests a TCR in the 1.3C range...hence I'll go with the less aggressive temperature predictions.

[nflwxman]

They were also able to recreate much of the 20th century prior to the hiatus which made them confident that a hiatus wouldn't happen. We were accelerating the warming trend.  

 

Now, we have a study that uses a subset of 12 out of 262 CMIP 5 simulations that shows that these 12 were able to recreate the hiatus. They say that it would be normal for the mean to be well above the observations because the models didn't capture the natural variability in the mean. Yet, we're supposed to believe the ensemble mean for predictions? I guess this would be believable if we truly believe that the natural variability event we just had was more than 2 sigma.

 

The other study discussed earlier in this thread implies that natural variability masked about 0.3-0.35C of AGW warming...that same study implied that AGW was basically zero once you got back to the 1970s. That doesn't sound very believable...only if the aerosol component is very high. But then that creates its own set of problems...mostly that very high aerosol component should have meant more cooling than we saw in Pinatubo.

 

In short, I'm not convinced at all that using a model with a 3C sensitivity that recreates a hiatus by fine-tuning certain parameters is a robust way of validating the model going forward. We are basically trusting that we are going to warm at something around 0.5C per decade once we flip back to a positive ENSO regime. We are trsuting that the natural variability event we saw happened to be so extreme, that only a handful of model runs could reproduce it. I don't buy it. Perhaps in another 10 years if we warm at your 0.25C, then I'll be more convinced.

 

For now, I am more inclined to believe the empirical evidence that suggests a TCR in the 1.3C range...hence I'll go with the less aggressive temperature predictions.

Is it really much different from weather forecasting in that sense?  The Ensemble mean will likely have more skill in further in the future, while individual operational models initialized and seeded with specific conditions (ENSO, TSI history) will be more accurate in the hind cast and in the short term.  As I said, there have been at least 3 times in the past where temperatures were out of the 90% confidence range of the ENS mean (not always on the low side).  

 

I'll still take a bet that the next 2 years will surprise a lot of folks in terms of global temperature.  Your prediction of 0.725 on GISS (half mine) in the next decade will require a serious slowdown in the warming we have seen in the last 6 years (since the PDO crash- and yes I realize this is a cherry pick).

 

It's great that all this is at least testable in the short term.  I just see no evidence that La Ninas are warming slower than Ninos/ENSO neutral in general the last 40 years, PDO or not.

 

[Jonger]

I think the next 3 years will be pretty tough for skeptics in terms of explaining a natural cause for the continued warming.  Solar output is low, the PDO has flipped negative for several years, and climate modelers are able to recreate the "hiatus" with climate models seeded with a 3 degree C ECS.  The excuses are running thin.  At this point, I think the debate lies where ECS falls, as it's highly unlikely under 2 or over 4 degrees C.

 

 

 

 

After the last 15 years, I'm thinking less than 2.0C.

 

It might take another 20 years to break 1.0C at this rate.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Question is are we breaking out of the hiatus now, or is this just another rouse? Next few years will be very interesting to watch.

[ORH_wxman]

Is it really much different from weather forecasting in that sense?  The Ensemble mean will likely have more skill in further in the future, while individual operational models initialized and seeded with specific conditions (ENSO, TSI history) will be more accurate in the hind cast and in the short term.  As I said, there have been at least 3 times in the past where temperatures were out of the 90% confidence range of the ENS mean (not always on the low side).  

 

I'll still take a bet that the next 2 years will surprise a lot of folks in terms of global temperature.  Your prediction of 0.725 on GISS (half mine) in the next decade will require a serious slowdown in the warming we have seen in the last 6 years (since the PDO crash- and yes I realize this is a cherry pick).

 

It's great that all this is at least testable in the short term.  I just see no evidence that La Ninas are warming slower than Ninos/ENSO neutral in general the last 40 years, PDO or not.

 

 

 

 

Yes of course...2008 was pretty cold for recent years.

 

We're going back into a solar min (who knows if this will be prolonged again like the last one, but many believe it will be) and I believe the PDO will dive back once this positive burst since January is over. The AMO has also likely peaked...perhaps we could see a double peak like the 1930s/early 1950s...who knows. This will act to suppress some of the Northern Hemisphere warming that was enhanced in the 1990s and 2000s once it actually does fall.  

 

I know people like Friv don't believe in the AMO doing much, but I believe much of the literature that says otherwise. It's not a huge factor, but just one of many small ones that we still don't know a lot about...and its relationship to the AMOC.

 

 

But we'll find out soon enough in the next 10-15 years if these predictions of resumed rapid warming are correct.

[nflwxman]

Question is are we breaking out of the hiatus now, or is this just another rouse? Next few years will be very interesting to watch.

I'm of the opinion that the true hiatus really was only 2008-2013 associated with 75% ENSO negative frequency and low solar activity.   If you look at other years prior to that, there is clearly still warming.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2008/mean:12

 

Versus:

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2014/mean:12

[nflwxman]

Yes of course...2008 was pretty cold for recent years.

 

We're going back into a solar min (who knows if this will be prolonged again like the last one, but many believe it will be) and I believe the PDO will dive back once this positive burst since January is over. The AMO has also likely peaked...perhaps we could see a double peak like the 1930s/early 1950s...who knows. This will act to suppress some of the Northern Hemisphere warming that was enhanced in the 1990s and 2000s once it actually does fall.  

 

I know people like Friv don't believe in the AMO doing much, but I believe much of the literature that says otherwise. It's not a huge factor, but just one of many small ones that we still don't know a lot about...and its relationship to the AMOC.

 

 

But we'll find out soon enough in the next 10-15 years if these predictions of resumed rapid warming are correct.

Yes we will.  I think the hiatus is only a figment of a climate shift.  The further you get away from the shift, the more it just looks like "noise."  I don't know enough the AMO to comment, but I would imagine it's impact would be magnitudes smaller than the pacific in terms of global surface temperatures.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'm of the opinion that the true hiatus really was only 2008-2013 associated with 75% ENSO negative frequency and low solar activity. If you look at other years prior to that, there is clearly still warming.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2008/mean:12

Versus:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2014/mean:12

A very interesting supposition. Will definitely be put to the test over the next year as we enter this Niño in the middle of solar maximum. I personally think the pause has more to do with tropical wind speeds.

On that front, the upcoming period will give us a chance to test a lot of denier theories as well...this should be fun.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes we will. I think the hiatus is only a figment of a climate shift. The further you get away from the shift, the more it just looks like "noise." I don't know enough the AMO to comment, but I would imagine it's impact would be magnitudes smaller than the pacific in terms of global surface temperatures.

The PDO actually just represents the contrast in SSTs over the northern basin. The AMO is a uniform SST fluctuation.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes we will.  I think the hiatus is only a figment of a climate shift.  The further you get away from the shift, the more it just looks like "noise."  I don't know enough the AMO to comment, but I would imagine it's impact would be magnitudes smaller than the pacific in terms of global surface temperatures.

 

 

I still do not think it fits well with the big warming predictions. There's all this justification for slowing temps in the context of what should be 0.25C per decade warming (increasing much higher than that if GCMs are to verify) while compromising how the warming looks further back in time. I don't think it fits very well. It fits much better in in the context of a more subdued warming trend.

 

The hiatus ending and resuming enough warming to justify these higher end predictions are not the same thing.

[nflwxman]

I still do not think it fits well with the big warming predictions. There's all this justification for slowing temps in the context of what should be 0.25C per decade warming (increasing much higher than that if GCMs are to verify) while compromising how the warming looks further back in time. I don't think it fits very well. It fits much better in in the context of a more subdued warming trend.

The hiatus ending and resuming enough warming to justify these higher end predictions are not the same thing.

What do you mean "higher end" projections? I can't really comment without definition.