Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[Msalgado]

Your standing on "equivalency" is totally self-defeating because there are no standings or baselines in theoretical science from which to derive truth.

Your statement below reads a lot like what scientists were saying about stomach ulcers back in the mid-late 20th century...supposedly based on sound biochemical science.

I may agree with your position on climate science, but your argumentative reasoning is very weak and unscientific.

 

Do you understand the biochemical science behind ulcer theory of the mid-late 20th century?  Are you well read and versed on how that theory was formed and whether or not it was properly conceived?  I'm not and I suspect you're not either but are merely pointing to it because it was later proven to be incorrect.  It is entirely possible that scientists in that field were proceeding properly and that their theories and whatever statements they may have made were scientific.  But I have absolutely no idea as it is not my field, I have no interest in it, and I merely have a cursory familiarity with it due to the spectacular fashion in which the actual cause of ulcers was discovered.  So, whatever?

 

By bringing that up did you mean to say that we should treat the possibility of modern day AGW theory and the idea that CO2 is not the cause of warming equally because modern day AGW theory may be over turned in the same manner as ulcer theory was?  If so that's incredibly foolhardy.  

 

False equivalency is exactly that.  You're either misunderstanding the point i'm making above or you're advocating that the idea that modern AGW theory may be wrong be given undue prominence.  Is it possible that modern day AGW theory is incorrect?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.  In fact, its incredibly unlikely.  So care to explain to me how it is "weak and unscientific" to give a viewpoint that is virtually impossible legitimacy without any shred of proof?

[StudentOfClimatology]

By bringing that up did you mean to say that we should treat the possibility of modern day AGW theory and the idea that CO2 is not the cause of warming equally because modern day AGW theory may be over turned in the same manner as ulcer theory was? If so that's incredibly foolhardy.

False equivalency is exactly that. You're either misunderstanding the point i'm making above or you're advocating that the idea that modern AGW theory may be wrong be given undue prominence. Is it possible that modern day AGW theory is incorrect? Yes. Is it likely? No. In fact, its incredibly unlikely. So care to explain to me how it is "weak and unscientific" to give a viewpoint that is virtually impossible legitimacy without any shred of proof?

I think you're misinterpreting my suggestion(s) to you. I highly doubt AGW will be overturned due to the ever-increasing body of evidence supporting it. That's been my position all along. However, knowing that much crazier things have happened in science, I resort to the scientific method, and eliminate the concept of competing "sides" because in the theoretical realm there is no weight in condemnation or perspective. I don't care if I have 25 million scientists on my side. It means nothing. It certainly doesn't prove me correct, in any way whatsoever.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Do you understand the biochemical science behind ulcer theory of the mid-late 20th century? Are you well read and versed on how that theory was formed and whether or not it was properly conceived? I'm not and I suspect you're not either but are merely pointing to it because it was later proven to be incorrect. It is entirely possible that scientists in that field were proceeding properly and that their theories and whatever statements they may have made were scientific. But I have absolutely no idea as it is not my field, I have no interest in it, and I merely have a cursory familiarity with it due to the spectacular fashion in which the actual cause of ulcers was discovered. So, whatever?

I shouldn't have to answer this for you. The research was, and still is available and widely discussed. It's mistakes like these that are supposed to serve as the stepping stone for progress in both procedure and knowledge. Unfortunately, we often repeat our mistakes several times over, in a broad sense, before we finally garner enough humility to accept our failings.

[Msalgado]

I think you're misinterpreting my suggestion(s) to you. I highly doubt AGW will be overturned due to the ever-increasing body of evidence supporting it. That's been my position all along. However, knowing that much crazier things have happened in science, I resort to the scientific method, and eliminate the concept of competing "sides" because in the theoretical realm there is no weight in condemnation or perspective. I don't care if I have 25 million scientists on my side. It means nothing. It certainly doesn't prove me correct, in any way whatsoever.

 

This is fine as a thought exercise in an academic setting but when it comes to making decisions it certainly does matter if you have 25 million scientists on your side.  That's the point.  Appealing to authority is technically a logical fallacy but we all appeal to authority in order to make decisions all the time.  

 

This post could not be any less pragmatic.  In any event, I allow completely for the possibility AGW theory is incorrect, as I stated above.  However, I have absolutely no reason to suspect that is the case because there's no evidence.  Whether crazier things have happened is completely irrelevant as there is no evidence.  

 

If that is unscientific in your eyes, then I'm OK with that.

[Msalgado]

I shouldn't have to answer this for you. The research was, and still is available and widely discussed. It's mistakes like these that are supposed to serve as the stepping stone for progress in both procedure and knowledge. Unfortunately, we often repeat our mistakes several times over, in a broad sense, before we finally garner enough humility to accept our failings.

 

Yes because I should be well versed in something that is completely outside of my field and in no way relevant to any research I'm currently doing.  I forgot we were on AmericanGastro.com.

[chubbs]

As compelling as the case for anthropogenic warming is (personally I think it's fairly straightforward), you're definitely not following the scientific method here. One must be careful not to speak in absolutes...especially when you're trying to theoretically model a system full of non-linear dynamics and macro/microscale thresholds. Science has been burned countless times by this sort of thinking.

In this case, evidence in the ice-core data leads me to believe climate sensitivity lies in the 3.5-5K range per doubling of CO^2 concentration...however I'm not going to throw away the scientific method to suit my belief system, as so many professionals unfortunately do.

In fact I've come across this sort of behavior so frequently that I've developed my own personal "smell-test.". The test is....if can derive one's political leanings based on his/her views on AGW, I take any scientific opinions from these individuals with a grain of salt

 

In the case of CO2 impact on climate, the more things change the more they remain the same. Below are links to a paper by G Plass from 1958, and a  blog and 1950s NY times article on his work. In the 1950s Plass re-invigorated the theory of greenhouse warming due to CO2. It is interesting to read his paper today to see how science has proven some ideas wrong and others largely correct. By today's standards he used the most rudimentary calculations but the errors have mainly cancelled out leaving his 70-year old. estimates amazingly accurate - +3.8C per CO2 doubling and 1.1C per century from manmade CO2.  Back then there were no CO2 measurements and global temperatures had been flat or decreasing since the 1940s. Measurements soon showed that CO2 indeed was increasing but it took 20 years after Plass' papers were published before temperatures began to increase consistent with theory.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusa/article/download/8969/10431&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3JCx0EyuRNl5lMo9XVtfrAnpcb3A&oi=scholarr

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

[StudentOfClimatology]

This is fine as a thought exercise in an academic setting but when it comes to making decisions it certainly does matter if you have 25 million scientists on your side. That's the point. Appealing to authority is technically a logical fallacy but we all appeal to authority in order to make decisions all the time.

Oh I agree re: decision making. But this is more of an academic forum/community, as far as I know. When it comes to the politics of the issue, then yeah I understand that things probably work differently (as they should).

This post could not be any less pragmatic. In any event, I allow completely for the possibility AGW theory is incorrect, as I stated above. However, I have absolutely no reason to suspect that is the case because there's no evidence. Whether crazier things have happened is completely irrelevant as there is no evidence.

If that is unscientific in your eyes, then I'm OK with that.

What you just said here sounds much better to me, and essentially sums up my position(s) on the matter as well. Thanks for the reply

[StudentOfClimatology]

In the case of CO2 impact on climate, the more things change the more they remain the same. Below are links to a paper by G Plass from 1958, and a blog and 1950s NY times article on his work. In the 1950s Plass re-invigorated the theory of greenhouse warming due to CO2. It is interesting to read his paper today to see how science has proven some ideas wrong and others largely correct. By today's standards he used the most rudimentary calculations but the errors have mainly cancelled out leaving his 70-year old. estimates amazingly accurate - +3.8C per CO2 doubling and 1.1C per century from manmade CO2. Back then there were no CO2 measurements and global temperatures had been flat or decreasing since the 1940s. Measurements soon showed that CO2 indeed was increasing but it took 20 years after Plass' papers were published before temperatures began to increase consistent with theory.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusa/article/download/8969/10431&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3JCx0EyuRNl5lMo9XVtfrAnpcb3A&oi=scholarr

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

Fantastic reads, thanks. A true scientist, in all ways humanly feasable.

[stadiumwave]

His statement is completely inaccurate and I need look no further than the most recent IPCC report to prove that.  The IPCC report is an overview of what the scientific literature says.  So when he says that its too early to tell how much of the warming is due to CO2 he's incredibly wrong.  We have a mechanism that explains the warming and we have a lack of any other mechanism that could explain the warming so it becomes pretty damn easy to see what is causing the warming.

 

I'm not going to play some false equivalency game here.  There's not a middle ground on firm quantifiable situations.  2+2 does not become equal to 3 just because it is politically contentious and enough people say it is.  It is not about two sides but about the truth.  One side owns the scientific truth while the other is either lying or ignorant of the truth.  Its pretty damn simple on this front.

 

There are certainly aspects of climate science that are much harder to understand and where a great deal of uncertainty lies.  That CO2 is driving the warming is not one of them.

 

 

I agree with Dr. Curry on this:

 

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

[stadiumwave]

German scientist Hans Von Storch...one of the leading IPCC authors...speaks as a scientists should speak in this interview with SPIEGEL concerning the "hiatus":

 

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

 

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO₂ emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

 

 

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

 

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO₂ emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

 

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

 

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

 

 

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

 

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO₂, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

 

 

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

 

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

 

 

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

[chubbs]

I agree with Dr. Curry on this:

 

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

Curry's arguments are unconvincing. She focuses on 1910-40 and 1975-2000 when there was a natural contributiuon to warming. But she ignores periods like 1940-1975 and 2000 to present when natural factors had a cooling influence. Over the long-term natural warming and cooling periods have cancelled out. Once we get past 30 years only AGW has contributed significantly to temperature rise.

[Msalgado]

Oh I agree re: decision making. But this is more of an academic forum/community, as far as I know. When it comes to the politics of the issue, then yeah I understand that things probably work differently (as they should).

What you just said here sounds much better to me, and essentially sums up my position(s) on the matter as well. Thanks for the reply

 

I appreciate the discussion even when we disagree, for the record.  I have a tendency to come off as snarky at times, but I am never mean it to offend.

[sokolow]

I think you're misinterpreting my suggestion(s) to you. I highly doubt AGW will be overturned due to the ever-increasing body of evidence supporting it. That's been my position all along. However, knowing that much crazier things have happened in science, I resort to the scientific method, and eliminate the concept of competing "sides" because in the theoretical realm there is no weight in condemnation or perspective. I don't care if I have 25 million scientists on my side. It means nothing. It certainly doesn't prove me correct, in any way whatsoever.

Oh I agree re: decision making. But this is more of an academic forum/community, as far as I know. When it comes to the politics of the issue, then yeah I understand that things probably work differently (as they should).

Yeah. I have every expectation that the pessimistic induction will hold to a greater or lesser extent. However -- and this came up in discussing that op-ed with the headline "the debate is over" a while back -- we need to especially careful not to retreat to nitpicking via rarefied philosophy of science when we know statements like "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" are shorthand ways of saying the science is at present sufficiently & robustly established for the purposes of setting legislative and economic policy, or for that matter, in terms of establishing cultural attitudes and discursive stances in the matrix of public (lay) language.

[sokolow]

Furthermore I think there's good reason to critique the ideological stance which asserts an idealized binary division between supposed separate realms of "science" and "advocacy," if only because the division is obviated by how funding gets done.

[stadiumwave]

Curry's arguments are unconvincing. She focuses on 1910-40 and 1975-2000 when there was a natural contributiuon to warming. But she ignores periods like 1940-1975 and 2000 to present when natural factors had a cooling influence. Over the long-term natural warming and cooling periods have cancelled out. Once we get past 30 years only AGW has contributed significantly to temperature rise.

 

 

Not true at all.  We've been warming for 300+ years & the warming periods have always been greater than the cooling periods throughout, with the exception of one.  So, it's obvious that we have already been in a natural warming cycle after a really cold period from roughly 1400-1700.

 

Comparing the trends over the last century just do not convince me that we know yet the answer to the "how much" is natural & "how much" is AGW.  I'm certainly not denying AGW at all but I disagree with any statements of high confidence. Raw data just doesn't give any reason for high confidence either way. 

 

Remember, even the IPCC gives credence to an Arctic in the 1930's as warm or warmer than today's Arctic:

 

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” (AR5 Chapter 10)

 

 

IPCC also gives credence to high sea level rises comparable to today from 1920-1950:

 

“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr between 1993 and 2010.It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (AR5 SPM)

[Isotherm]

Curry's arguments are unconvincing. She focuses on 1910-40 and 1975-2000 when there was a natural contributiuon to warming. But she ignores periods like 1940-1975 and 2000 to present when natural factors had a cooling influence. Over the long-term natural warming and cooling periods have cancelled out. Once we get past 30 years only AGW has contributed significantly to temperature rise.

 

 

Which natural factor had a cooling influence beginning in 2000?

[nflwxman]

Which natural factor had a cooling influence beginning in 2000?

Sun,ENSO, PDO, and aerosols (cloud forcing). You name it. All of which likely had a cooling influence on climate since 2000. One of the many reasons why modelers are not sweating the "hiatus" as much as the media brings on.

[chubbs]

Which natural factor had a cooling influence beginning in 2000?

 ENSO - La Nina increasingly more frequent, PDO - switch from positive to negative,  solar cycle weak. Since the last La Nina ended in 2012 natural focing has reversed and  temps are responding.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Sun,ENSO, PDO, and aerosols (cloud forcing). You name it. All of which likely had a cooling influence on climate since 2000. One of the many reasons why modelers are not sweating the "hiatus" as much as the media brings on.

I think we can eliminate the Sun and cloud cover as causes. Both CERES and AIRS find an OLR increase during this time when adjusting for ENSO, suggesting that a combination of ENSO, stronger winds over the oceans, and Aerosol forcing may be to blame

[Isotherm]

 ENSO - La Nina increasingly more frequent, PDO - switch from positive to negative,  solar cycle weak. Since the last La Nina ended in 2012 natural focing has reversed and  temps are responding.

 

 

Both ENSO and the PDO were predominately positive through 2007, so I disagree with that. The PDO largely began to shift negative in the 2007-08 time frame, and we had a greater amount of time w/ +ENSO than -ENSO in the 2000-2007 period.

 

Solar wise, we didn't dive into the minimum of cycle 23 until the late 2000s, and solar cycles were still quite strong through the late 90s/early part of the 2000s. Flux didn't begin a significant decline until late 2005.

[stadiumwave]

I think we can eliminate the Sun and cloud cover as causes. Both CERES and AIRS find an OLR increase during this time when adjusting for ENSO, suggesting that a combination of ENSO, stronger winds over the oceans, and Aerosol forcing may be to blame

 

 

I don't think we can eliminate the sun at all because it seems to be linked somewhat as a trigger to some of the other forcing mechanisms you mentioned.  Another one to watch is the low solar activity & volcanoe/earthquake relationship.  It's not yet determined what the relationship is as of yet but there definitely is some type of linkage.  Both during the Maunder & Dalton minimums there was an increase in volcanic activity that more than likely enhanced any cooling that was experienced.

[stadiumwave]

Both ENSO and the PDO were predominately positive through 2007, so I disagree with that. The PDO largely began to shift negative in the 2007-08 time frame, and we had a greater amount of time w/ +ENSO than -ENSO in the 2000-2007 period.

 

Solar wise, we didn't dive into the minimum of cycle 23 until the late 2000s, and solar cycles were still quite strong through the late 90s/early part of the 2000s.

 

 

Regardless of the +PDO cycle from 2000-2007 we still had frequent La Nina events that definitely contributed to the "hiatus". Super El Nino events have been absent since 1998 & so there was no event from 1998-2006 to bump global temps upward before the PDO cycle flip to negative in 2007.

 

[PhillipS]

Not true at all.  We've been warming for 300+ years & the warming periods have always been greater than the cooling periods throughout, with the exception of one.  So, it's obvious that we have already been in a natural warming cycle after a really cold period from roughly 1400-1700.

 

Comparing the trends over the last century just do not convince me that we know yet the answer to the "how much" is natural & "how much" is AGW.  I'm certainly not denying AGW at all but I disagree with any statements of high confidence. Raw data just doesn't give any reason for high confidence either way. 

 

Remember, even the IPCC gives credence to an Arctic in the 1930's as warm or warmer than today's Arctic:

 

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” (AR5 Chapter 10)

 

 

IPCC also gives credence to high sea level rises comparable to today from 1920-1950:

 

“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr between 1993 and 2010.It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (AR5 SPM)

 

What is your source for your claim of 300 years of recent warming?  Here is one of may paleoclimate temperature reconstructions [source]:

 

 

To my eye the Earth has been steadily cooling for roughly 5K years with just a little hiccup about 2K years ago.  But maybe the resolution of that plot is too coarse.  Solet's see what NASA shows:

 

 

No, that doesn't support your claim either since it shows a long-term cooling trend that reverses at the start of the Industrial Revolution and accelerates rapidly since around 1900.

 

Can you help us understand what you were trying to say?

[stadiumwave]

What is your source for your claim of 300 years of recent warming?  Here is one of may paleoclimate temperature reconstructions [source]:

 

 

To my eye the Earth has been steadily cooling for roughly 5K years with just a little hiccup about 2K years ago.  But maybe the resolution of that plot is too coarse.  Solet's see what NASA shows:

 

 

No, that doesn't support your claim either since it shows a long-term cooling trend that reverses at the start of the Industrial Revolution and accelerates rapidly since around 1900.

 

Can you help us understand what you were trying to say?

 

 

Your graph shows it but here's a better look:

 

 

The cooling at 1800 was due to Dalton minimum & the very high volcanic activity in the early 1800's.  1811-12 was the famous "year without a summer" due to volcano activity.

[tacoman25]

Regardless of the +PDO cycle from 2000-2007 we still had frequent La Nina events that definitely contributed to the "hiatus". Super El Nino events have been absent since 1998 & so there was no event from 1998-2006 to bump global temps upward before the PDO cycle flip to negative in 2007.

 

 

 

And the last one before that was in 1982. There was nothing comparable from 1940-1971.

[stadiumwave]

 

And the last one before that was in 1982. There was nothing comparable from 1940-1971.

 

 

5 strong El Nino's, 2 of which were super from 1982-1998 but during the +PDO cycle.  1940-1971 was mostly during the 1945-1977 +PDO cycle...hence, no really strong El Nino's.  That's why there's been no strong El Nino's since 1998...PDO was dropping & flipped negative in 2007.  You're just not going to see a super-strong El Nino during a -PDO cycle. The strongest El Nino during a -PDO cycle was in 1973 & it was still below the 5 El Nino events from 1982-1998.

[PhillipS]

 

Your graph shows it but here's a better look:

 

 

The cooling at 1800 was due to Dalton minimum & the very high volcanic activity in the early 1800's.  1811-12 was the famous "year without a summer" due to volcano activity.

 

 

Thank you for posting that graph, but it does lead to more questions.  In your chart the temperature anomaly difference between the max (circa 850 AD) and the min (circa 1590 AD) is about 1.2 C.  On the NASA chart that same period had a difference of about 0.3 C, a factor of 4 less.  Why the extreme difference in magnitudes?  If your chart were extended to today the temperature anomaly woud would be a full 2 C over the baseline and about 2.6 C over the lowest value on your graph.  Values which, you may agree, would be incredibly high.  It is not just a matter of different baselines since the values themselves differ by a factor of four.  Could you share the source for your graph?  Perhaps there is info there on how they calculated their values.

[sokolow]

Dr. Roy Spencer dot com linking

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES by Craig Loehle

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007

edit that paper is a beaut

double edit i also see this paper has a long and storied history

go have a read

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

Both ENSO and the PDO were predominately positive through 2007, so I disagree with that. The PDO largely began to shift negative in the 2007-08 time frame, and we had a greater amount of time w/ +ENSO than -ENSO in the 2000-2007 period.

 

Solar wise, we didn't dive into the minimum of cycle 23 until the late 2000s, and solar cycles were still quite strong through the late 90s/early part of the 2000s. Flux didn't begin a significant decline until late 2005.

 

The PDO has been declining since the early 1990s.

 

 

It even plummeted in the late 1990s for 3-4 years with only short rebound before plummeting again at the same time solar tanked and India/China aerosols went bonkers coinciding with the stagnant warming of the tropics. 

 

 

Since 2011/12 both India and more so China have started great lengths to clean up their act and lower their aerosol pollution.

 

Concurrently OHC and Global ssts have started their march upwards again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Isotherm]

The PDO has been declining since the early 1990s.

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree. Remember there can be periodic negative (positive) periods within the overall positive (negative) decadal phase.

 

One could argue that the "onset" of the transition began in the early 2000s, but the PDO truly did not become predominately negative until 2007+