2014 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

And we would be cooling significantly post 2007 to present without AGW.

 

The last time the PDO flipped from positive to negative in 1945, the 5 year rolling average temperature dropped 0.25 deg C.  This time?  No drop at all.  If anything, it's just getting back on track to rise.  Coincidence?  I think not.

 

I mean look at this decade long naturally induced trend between 1940-1950.  It's almost -0.28C/decade!  So yes, natural variability can "hide" AGW up to a time.  In 10-15 years, when the PDO goes pop for a sustained period, we are going to get our 0.2C/decade ON top of the AGW trend of 0.2/decade+. 

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1950/trend

 

 

 

This is precisely the point I was trying to get across.  Between solar and the PDO tanking we should be looking at a .3C roughly drop. 

 

IIRC Skier said with this big solar plunge it would likely cause .1 to .15C in cooling.

 

The PDO should cause .2C to .3C???

 

 

So when you have a solar plunge and tanking PDO we could reasonably expect around a .3C to .35C temperature drop?

 

We haven't even seen a temperature drop. 

 

 

 

 

That shift also took place when TSI was steadily increasing thru the late 1950s.  This one occurs when solar tanks more than it has in a century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The AMO on the other hand doesn't do much in terms of global temps.  The PDO correlation to swings is pretty uncanny. 

 

 

 

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

So you believe 30-40% of the warming wasn't AGW.

 

But you don't also blame the "hiatus" on natural factors?

 

When the hiatus is over and the natural factors flip.

 

The sum of all the warming will almost 100% be from AGW.

 

Whatever 30-50% warming took place "naturally" will be completely off-set by the same "natural" forces during the cool phase of these natural processes.

 

In the end the only mechanism for the warming is AGW.

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

 

Correct...for 1975-2000...of course natural factors offset the post-2000 AGW, but I support the literature that doesn't claim it offset like 0.30C of warming.

 

I still don't think you have read any of the literature I posted...because if you had, you'd understand what they are saying and where my posts are coming from. You don't have to agree with them, but it would be easy to understand at least. Those papers support an AGW trend somewhere in the 0.10-0.15C per decade range at present.

[stadiumwave]

So you believe 30-40% of the warming wasn't AGW.

 

But you don't also blame the "hiatus" on natural factors?

 

When the hiatus is over and the natural factors flip.

 

The sum of all the warming will almost 100% be from AGW.

 

Whatever 30-50% warming took place "naturally" will be completely off-set by the same "natural" forces during the cool phase of these natural processes.

 

In the end the only mechanism for the warming is AGW.

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

 

 

Science does not support that claim.  I don't understand why some want to overstate or exaggerate.  The only reason I can come up with why some want to overstate either way is because there's some emotional, subjective component controlling the thought process.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am not disputing that natural factors caused 30-40% of the warming.

 

I am just saying all that natural warming that took place is being countered by the natural cooling that would be happening if AGW wasn't happening.

 

When this cooling period ends that 30-40% of natural warming will be wiped out by natural cooling.  The PDO has tanked to near the record lowest in the mid to late 1950s.

 

In conjunction with the PDO completely tanking solar forcing has tanked like we haven't seen in a century.

 

 

When I first started reading this forum it was a huge deal that climate modelers and climatologist recognize the natural variance of the climate.

 

It is already accepted and has been that natural variance was underestimated or at times ignored heading into what now has become known as the global warming hiatus.

 

I am simply stating that natural factors even more potent then during the PDO plunge of the 1940s have converged to cause the hiatus.

 

During the PDO cooling of the 1940s the sun was in the middle of a huge upswing that didn't peak until the late 1950s.

 

In spite of that global temps dropped dropped hard.

 

Now the same PDO plunge has taken place but in conjunction with a solar plunge.

 

The weakest solar max since the late 1920s.

The weakest solar min since the early 1910s.

The PDO the last few years has been near the record low readings during the 1950s.

 

From what I have read on these forums the combined cooling effect of a PDO and solar plunge like we have seen would be around -0.3C.

 

We haven't seen any cooling and now we are sitting at record warmth. Breaking ssta records big time.  Probably going to break all of the surface temp records and possibly the Sat temp records next year.

 

My point is simply that the natural variance with the +PDO is being cancelled out by the natural variance of the -PDO. 

 

It could be argued that with the massive solar plunge there has been stronger natural variance for cooling the last 7-8 years then there was warming with the +PDO because the sun was steadily stronger during that period and was already established as so before the PDO flipped positive.

 

So the main impact during that warming would have been the PDO.

 

It is a two way street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Science does not support that claim.  I don't understand why some want to overstate or exaggerate.  The only reason I can come up with why some want to overstate either way is because there's some emotional, subjective component controlling the thought process.

 

So you are saying there isn't natural cooling to off-set the 30-40% natural warming that took place during the last +PDO?

 

So you believe the Earth is naturally warming indefinitely?

 

I don't see how this is that hard to grasp.

 

 

 

 

When the hiatus is over and the natural factors flip.

 

The sum of all the warming will almost 100% be from AGW.

 

Whatever 30-50% warming took place "naturally" will be completely off-set by the same "natural" forces during the cool phase of these natural processes.

 

[Isotherm]

The last time the PDO flipped from positive to negative in 1945, the 5 year rolling average temperature dropped 0.25 deg C.  This time?  No drop at all.  If anything, it's just getting back on track to rise.  Coincidence?  I think not.

 

 

 

 

I think an important point to introduce, which I haven't seen mentioned on here, is the fact that the MEI was almost entirely negative, at times mod/strongly so, from approximately 1943 through 1952. Our highest MEI spike throughout that 9-10 year period was around +0.5 for the standardized departure.

 

If we examine the period post 2007, following the La Nina event, we had a spike over +1 in 2009-10, again slightly over +1 in 2012-13, and near +1 over the past year. That's significantly more +MEI duration / intensity than the onset of the last PDO transition in the middle 40s through early 50s.

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

And we would be cooling significantly post 2007 to present without AGW.

 

The last time the PDO flipped from positive to negative in 1945, the 5 year rolling average temperature dropped 0.25 deg C.  This time?  No drop at all.  If anything, it's just getting back on track to rise.  Coincidence?  I think not.

 

I mean look at this decade long naturally induced trend between 1940-1950.  It's almost -0.28C/decade!  So yes, natural variability can "hide" AGW up to a time.  In 10-15 years, when the PDO goes pop for a sustained period, we are going to get our 0.2C/decade ON top of the AGW trend of 0.2/decade+. 

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1950/trend

 

If the last cycle is any indication, it probably won't be for another 20 years or so.

[AvantHiatus]

If the last cycle is any indication, it probably won't be for another 20 years or so.

Uh, no

 

[Isotherm]

Uh, no

 

 

 

 

He's talking about the PDO regime. We just flipped in 2007-08, so we're likely in the negative decadal regime for at least another 20 years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Uh, no

 

 

 

He isn't saying the "hiatus" will last another 20 years.  Just the -PDO.

 

One thing to note is that the -PDO base pattern has a large ridge over the NPAC. 

 

If what modelers and climatologists who study the effect of AGW on the Hadley cells are right with the -PDO/ENSO Nuetral/Nina dominance we will probably continue to see the North Pacific get warmer and warmer overtime. 

 

It just wouldn't have the same impact on warming the lower troposphere as the tropics do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The SST anomalies are taking on the El nino/+PDO look. 

 

The North Central NPacific cooling down as well as the North central NATL.  While the sub tropics in those basins have warmed up substantially

 

The Indian Ocean has started to warm up as well.

 

The further NPAC is still torching hard.  But it should cool down with the pattern changing. 

 

The Western Pacific has continued to stay warm tho.

 

We are probably not going to drop off very much the next few months from where we are now.  We will need some massive cooling over the NH waters to off set the ENSO warming to get the global ssta below 0.3C+.

 

 

I would venture to guess next week comes in somewhere around .43C+.  But it's hard to say how much it will drop because the NATL and NPAC have cooled in those spots but they are very far North and do not cover that much surface area compared to the Indian ocean and ENSO region which has been warming this week.

 

Even the equatorial Atlantic is getting in on it.

 

 

 

 

[bluewave]

Uh, no

 

 

 

The earlier forecasts from the 90's busted pretty badly for the current temps which were supposed to be much warmer

than now. So I would take those projections with a grain of salt. The current hiatus will last as long as the -PDO -IPO

remains in effect. So I wouldn't be a surprised if the current hiatus continued for another 15 years to match the

length of the last one. By hiatus I mean a slower rate of warming relative to 1977-1997. But the ultimate duration

of this or any -PDO/-IPO phase is uncertain.

 

[stadiumwave]

So you are saying there isn't natural cooling to off-set the 30-40% natural warming that took place during the last +PDO?

 

So you believe the Earth is naturally warming indefinitely?

 

I don't see how this is that hard to grasp.

 

 

No...I believe the earth warm"ed" due to natural variation + increase in GHG.  Right now we're not warming unless you want to shift the focus from surface warming to deep ocean warming.  Deep ocean warming is not near enough to account for the "missing" heat that should also warm the surface also.  Attribution is very difficult to determine at this point & a ton of more research is needed.  But I cannot possibly believe that you can believe in a higher ESC when we've added a significant amount of C02 to the atmosphere during the "haitus" & yet we have this even a slight cooling trend depending upon which data set you use.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/

[stadiumwave]

I do expect a greater cooling trend when the AMO cycle flips & both PDO & AMO are negative.  My personal opinion is that it increase in GHG will probably make it minimal but noticeable nonetheless. 

 

I also totally agree that the next +PDO cycle warming will accelerate probably a little more than the last positive cycle.

[AvantHiatus]

He's talking about the PDO regime. We just flipped in 2007-08, so we're likely in the negative decadal regime for at least another 20 years.

The two are inherently connected, -PDO = hiatus and it's funny how this year we have been unable to return to the -PDO state with the trade winds going ape. If this -PDO doesn't come back in the next 5 years, it never will. The IPO state really doesn't support a +PDO and yet here we are.

 

Positive IPO + AGW = Blowtorch, we could exceed IPCC in 30-50 years. Assuming geo-engineering is not implemented.

 

August 2014 PDO

0.67+

[bluewave]

The two are inherently connected, -PDO = hiatus and it's funny how this year we have been unable to return to the -PDO state with the trade winds going ape. If this -PDO doesn't come back in the next 5 years, it never will. The IPO state really doesn't support a +PDO and yet here we are.

 

Positive IPO + AGW = Blowtorch, we could exceed IPCC in 30-50 years. Assuming geo-engineering is not implemented.

 

August 2014 PDO

0.67+

 

You can have transient warm pdo periods within a greater negative phase. Just look how the PDO was positive

for a few years in the early 2000's  after the late 90's great climate shift and then dipped again.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

 

 

What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world's climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere. Is it possible to successfully predict such climate shifts? This is the question that scientists, under the auspices of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, pursued. Using a coupled model of the ocean and the atmosphere, they were able to successfully replicate these events.

 

 

The researchers used a climate model, a so-called coupled ocean-atmosphere model, which they forced with the observed wind data of the last decades. For the abrupt changes during the 1970s and 1990s they calculated predictions which began a few months prior to the beginning of the observed climate shifts. The average of all predictions for both abrupt changes shows good agreement with the observed climate development in the Pacific.

"The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts," says Prof. Latif.

[stadiumwave]

The two are inherently connected, -PDO = hiatus and it's funny how this year we have been unable to return to the -PDO state with the trade winds going ape. If this -PDO doesn't come back in the next 5 years, it never will. The IPO state really doesn't support a +PDO and yet here we are.

 

Positive IPO + AGW = Blowtorch, we could exceed IPCC in 30-50 years. Assuming geo-engineering is not implemented.

 

August 2014 PDO

0.67+

 

 

Why are you posting the +PDO data?  It's not very unusual for the PDO to go positive during the negative cycle.  Look at the the LATE 1950's-1961.  Mostly positive during that period even a 23 month stretch of nothing but positive. 

 

Maybe you were not meaning that by posting the data but if you did then my post is relevant for you & your just plain wrong.

[stadiumwave]

You can have transient warm pdo periods within a greater negative phase. Just look how the PDO was positive

for a few years in the early 2000's  after the late 90's great climate shift and then dipped again.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

 

 

What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world's climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere. Is it possible to successfully predict such climate shifts? This is the question that scientists, under the auspices of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, pursued. Using a coupled model of the ocean and the atmosphere, they were able to successfully replicate these events.

 

 

The researchers used a climate model, a so-called coupled ocean-atmosphere model, which they forced with the observed wind data of the last decades. For the abrupt changes during the 1970s and 1990s they calculated predictions which began a few months prior to the beginning of the observed climate shifts. The average of all predictions for both abrupt changes shows good agreement with the observed climate development in the Pacific.

"The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts," says Prof. Latif.

 

 

Sorry...must have been posting the same thing at the same time you were.  Good post!!

[stadiumwave]

Ignorance of the past leads to mulitple errors during the present. 

[stadiumwave]

Uh, no

 

 

 

Why are some of you still relying so heavily on climate models for future predictions.  They are so out of touch with reality.  Until they get the natural variation factors corrected overestimated predictions of warming will continue.

[nflwxman]

The earlier forecasts from the 90's busted pretty badly for the current temps which were supposed to be much warmer

than now. So I would take those projections with a grain of salt. The current hiatus will last as long as the -PDO -IPO

remains in effect. So I wouldn't be a surprised if the current hiatus continued for another 15 years to match the

length of the last one. By hiatus I mean a slower rate of warming relative to 1977-1997. But the ultimate duration

of this or any -PDO/-IPO phase is uncertain.

TEMP.jpg

PDO negative years have warmed just as fast as PDO positive years over the past century. Just as La Nina's have warmed as fast as El Ninos. I would be shocked if we didn't resume the same general warming trend in the next 10 years. In fact, I believe we could warm faster than 0.2c/decade in the next 10

Years versus the previous 10. All the PDO represents is a shift in the baseline, not the rate at which the earth warms after that shift.

OHC confirms this in 1945-1975. Forcing was nearly 0. It was not the PDO that stopped warming during that time, it was a change in forcing.

The hiatus is just an artifact of the recent shift. I

think the warming has already begun to resume

in earnest. The only way the rate would be depressed in the next decade versus

the previous one is if the PDO drops even further,

Solar really tanks, or there is a big volcanic

eruption.

[bluewave]

PDO negative years have warmed just as fast as PDO positive years over the past century. Just as La Nina's have warmed as fast as El Ninos. I would be shocked if we didn't resume the same general warming trend in the next 10 years. In fact, I believe we could warm faster than 0.2c/decade in the next 10

Years versus the previous 10. All the PDO represents is a shift in the baseline, not the rate at which the earth warms after that shift.

OHC confirms this in 1945-1975. Forcing was nearly 0. It was not the PDO that stopped warming during that time, it was a change in forcing.

 

You are going to have trouble warming at the rate prior to 1998 as long as the Pacific trade winds remain at

record levels. How long this lasts is anyones guess right now. But It needs to reverse  in order to

allow a faster rate of warming to commence like we saw between 77-97. The Super El Nino of 97-98

was quite an impressive global climate event with record westerly wind bursts followed by record

trade winds.

 

[nflwxman]

You are going to have trouble warming at the rate prior to 1998 as long as the Pacific trade winds remain at

record levels. Now how long this lasts is anyones guess right now. But It needs to reverse to

allow a faster rate of warming to commence like we saw between 77-97.

WIND.png

I disagree. Unless the trade winds continue to get stronger, we should warm at a rate on a decade to decade basis close

or greater than the 1979-1998 rate. We will see. I believe the next 2 years will be helpful data points to my case.

Soon alarmists will be able to cherry pick trends from 2008-2018 that show faster than average warming IMO.

[AvantHiatus]

The above issue was not addressed. If the trade winds are at record levels, why is the PDO still positive and floating around record high levels this spring? This cannot be solely due to the ENSO.

 

Monthly PDO values

2014** 0.30/0.38/0.97/1.13/1.80/0.82/0.70/0.67 

 

The only way to see a -PDO in the coming years is to shift the baseline

 

TGW is correct, the worldwide thermal baseline has dramatically changed.

 

Is it not obvious that warm PDO = rising global temperatures? I will await the Atlantic Heatsink theories.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have no idea what ESC means.  Never used that term.  But thanks for putting that in my mouth.  Appreciate it.

 

 

 

There has been plenty of heat entering the system.  If there wasn't global sea levels would not have been able to continue to rise the way they have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about the largest drop in TSI in a century?

Coinciding with the PDO plummeting and it's corresponding negative ENSO state?

 

Let's start with the obvious basics.

 

 

OHC-700M peaked in 2004.  This is during the TSI down-slope.   There is seasonal and ENSO variability to OHC on a shorter term scale.

 

From 2005-2010 OHC 0-700M flat-lined.  While the PDO tanked as well as TSI.  You can see how long and low the solar min was.  It is the lowest since the early 1910s.  The pathetic solar max we are currently nearing the end of is the lowest since the mid to late 1920s. 

 

 

You can see clearly on the graphics below the correlation between the PDO and global temperatures.  You can also see how the PDO started it's downward jog at the end of 2005.

 

So simultaneously we have the biggest and longest solar low since the early 20th century that has gone on now for almost a decade with the PDO tanking at the same time correlating with a predominant -ENSO state for the last 7-8 years.

 

The literature states a solar drop like this will have at least a 0.1C drop in global temperatures.  A PDO drop like we have seen has a 0.2C drop in global temperatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This hiatus has been going on for about 9 years now.  Global ssts have smashed thru their previous records(without a nino).  OHC has been rising above it's previous records since 2011.  Now global surface temps are pacing to tie or break their records without a NINO. Hell with a negative ONI average so far this year.

 

When you consider the literature would expect something on the order of 0.3C of global cooling the last decade I would say trends are pretty awful.

 

Just because modelers and climate scientists made wrong assumptions and predictions before this happened.  Doesn't change the how and why it's happened and what it means.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The above issue was not addressed. If the trade winds are at record levels, why is the PDO still positive and floating around record high levels this spring? This cannot be solely due to the ENSO.

Monthly PDO values

2014** 0.30/0.38/0.97/1.13/1.80/0.82/0.70/0.67

I thought we already had that huge debate on why SSTs above 30N are/were torching.

The seasonal progression into winter is now occurring as the ITCZ & Hadley Cells are now retreating south.

Notice the vorticity now progged over the latitude N-PAC, N-ATL, and Arctic. Those warm SSTs are now fueling plenty of instability/potential vorticity, as the summer regime is departing. Same thing last year from mid-September to mid-October over the N-PAC.

Current ECMWF ensembles:

So we're probably beginning a heat release event..so satellite temperatures should begin warming, while surface datasets should begin cooling in September or October. I suspect that N-PAC vortex will eventually lock in over the Aleutians in accordance with the El Nino.

[bluewave]

I disagree. Unless the trade winds continue to get stronger, we should warm at a rate on a decade to decade basis close

or greater than the 1979-1998 rate. We will see. I believe the next 2 years will be helpful data points to my case.

Soon alarmists will be able to cherry pick trends from 2008-2018 that show faster than average warming IMO.

 

That's going to be tough when you can't even get en El Nino as strong as during the last -PDO era.

These west based and weaker El Nino's since 1997-1998 haven't been able to move the global

temperature needle much. The stronger trades don't allow the El Ninos to get very strong

compared to the past.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Student of Climatology, I don't think the NPAC heat exchange will magically shut down during the winter. I think it will carry over to next year and amplify itself.

 

This year is different than proceeding years for reasons you have outlined previously. I'm not willing to call for a continuation of anything at this point (-PDO, etc). In my mind, the future is more uncertain than ever, and the goal posts are not based on the cold/warm spectrum.

 

Rather, Abrupt Climate Change vs Steady Warming

 

Btw, the pattern shift as advertised by the European Ensembles would end the persistent cold pattern for the Eastern US and destroy our prospects for winter possibly, depending on how the NAO interacts with the PV.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Student of Climatology, I don't think the NPAC heat exchange will magically shut down during the winter. I think it will carry over to next year and amplify itself.

This year is different than proceeding years for reasons you have outlined previously. I'm not willing to call for a continuation of anything at this point (-PDO, etc). In my mind, the future is more uncertain than ever, and the goal posts are not based on the cold/warm spectrum.

Rather, Abrupt Climate Change vs Steady Warming

Btw, the pattern shift as advertised by the European Ensembles would end the persistent cold pattern for the Eastern US and destroy our prospects for winter possibly, depending on how the NAO interacts with the PV.

I agree the "heat exchange" won't shut down...it never does. The question is how much does the N-PAC cool as the winter storminess sets in?

It cooled significantly last winter despite significant ridging in the means over the region. Winds are generally stronger in the winter, regardless of the pattern:

This winter, we may very well see more storminess over the N-PAC, given the El Nino. This storminess does two things to cool the SSTs:

- stirs up the waters, bringing colder waters to the surface

- conducts the heat into the atmosphere, where it is converted into latent form and/or emitted out to space.

That heat doesn't just vanish. Those warm SSTs may be fueling or enhancing storminess, as well, associated with the W-PAC tropical feed. This is pretty crazy, and will definitely remove/utilize a lot of heat from the sea surface:

[StudentOfClimatology]

Btw, the pattern shift as advertised by the European Ensembles would end the persistent cold pattern for the Eastern US and destroy our prospects for winter possibly, depending on how the NAO interacts with the PV.

I don't think this has any bearing on winter, yet. We saw something like this occur last September/October while wavelengths matured, and it seems to be related to W-PAC typhoon forcing. I am worried about the EPO this winter, but I suspect the QBO and ENSO forcings will probably allow for a -AO during the heart of winter.

I'm throwing out any hope for a decent autumn, though.

[nflwxman]

That's going to be tough when you can't even get en El Nino as strong as during the last -PDO era.

These west based and weaker El Nino's since 1997-1998 haven't been able to move the global

temperature needle much. The stronger trades don't allow the El Ninos to get very strong

compared to the past.

 

oni.jpg

I agree with you that El Ninos will continue to stay weak until the PDO and trade winds switch to their positive phase, but that wasn't my point.

 

Let's assume for a second that time started in 2008, in the start of the true negative PDO phase.  Ignore everything before that.  Given that all the natural indicators have more than likely bottomed out (solar, ENSO) in 2008-2012, don't you think that any upward trend at all for the natural indicators from that point on would enhance the AGW trend of approximately 0.2C/decade?

 

I understand that we will likely be below climate model projections (run in AR5) until the PDO goes positive.  When that happens, I believe we will go above current climate model projections until the PDO turns negative again.  It's natural sloshing.  Totally normal and something climate models can't see in future projections, but CAN in hindcasts.

 

Let's say the PDO flips positive in 2030 in the same manner it flipped negative.  The warming between 2008-2030 should be not much different than in a negative PDO phase than if the same period was a PDO+ phase.  I think this is where we differ.  I don't see any evidence to suggest that La Ninas or PDO- time periods have warmed any slower than the opposite fact.  

 

I'm guessing you believe that the PDO- phase will cause muted warming within itself, while I believe it's just a climate shift and warming will resume in the normal rate in context of the that climate shift.  I think the 1945-1975 trend was dampened because aerosals was offsets the smaller CO2 forcing at time, leading to a pretty stable OHC.