The pause that cools: No more warming until 2015?

You may recall the previous post where Basil Copeland and I looked at correlations between HadCRUT global temperature anomaly and sunspot numbers. This is similar, but looks at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and uses the same Hodrick-Prescott (HPT) filter as before on the HadCRUT global temperature anomaly data and the PDO Index.

click for a larger image –

NOTE: the purple line is a monthly warming rate, to get decadal values, multiply by 120

This graphic provides some context to what may be happening with the PDO. In the upper panel we’ve plotted the PDO (in red), a smoothed PDO (in light blue), and our analysis of the bidecadal variation in warming rates.

From the PDO data itself, it is just too soon to be able to tell whether the current cool phase is just one of the shorter cycles, or whether it is the beginning of a longer term cycle like we saw back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It is tempting, when looking at the warming rate cycles, to believe that we’ve just come out of a 60-66 year “Kerr” climate cycle, and are on the cusp of a cool phase like we see for the 1950’s and 1960’s.

But if you look closely at the end of the purple curve for our warming rate cycle, it seems to be about ready to turn back up. Now we do not want to put too much stock in the end values of a series that has been smoothed with HP filtering. So it could still be on a downward trend.

Then, to make it all the more interesting, we have solar cycle 23 lingering on. Considering that also, confidence is higher that we will continue to see a relative respite in the rate of warming and that we’re not likely to see our warming rate cycle jump back to where it was during solar cycles 22-23. But whether we see a full blown interlude between two strong warming trends, like we saw during the 1950’s and 1960’s, remains to be seen.

In other words, as we saw with Easterbrook’s analysis, we can be reasonably confident in projecting at least no further warming for a while. For that to happen, the purple warming rate curve must not only turn back upwards, it must rise into the region of positive values, and continue to rise for several years. If solar cycle 24 turns out to be a weak solar cycle, and there are historical precedents for cycle length suggesting it is likely to be weak, that probably isn’t happening.

I’ll have more on solar cycles 23 and 24 coming up in the next day or so.

So, in summary; probably no net warming for awhile, and maybe a period of extended cooling as in the mid 20th century. It all depends on whether this current PDO shift is a short term or longer term event such as we saw in the mid 20th century.

This is inline with the article in today’s UK Telegraph, saying:

“Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”

There’s a similar article in Yahoo News.

The paper by Keenlyside et al entitled “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector” from the Nature website


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Robert Wood

The AGW is being masked by natural occurances.
I can already see Hansen’s press conference.

Graham H

The citation states:
“Note: the purple line is a monthly warming rate, to get decadal values, multiply by 144”
Do you mean “multiply by 120”?
REPLY: Fixed thanks


Now a German group are predicting a flip of the NAO. That would hurt.

Jet Stream

Now a German group are predicting a flip of the NAO. That would hurt.
Hi, do you have a link ?


Am I reading the chart right? Is the global temperature effect in tenths of degrees Celsius or hundredths as on the chart?
I’ll have more on solar cycles 23 and 24 coming up in the next day or so.
Never fear. I’ll provide more lyrics.
REPLY: hundreths

pablo an ex pat

Live link to Hansen Press Conference:
“Now as we all know….”
Aside to Noises Off “err sorry Al but the cover is blown, keep quiet and I’ll do what I can”
“…the Planet hasn’t warmed one bit since 1998. And I know that we claimed it at the time it happened then because of CO2 but that was because we needed a big win, but in the end as you all now now that was an El Nino year, which is a Natural Variation, is that funny or what ?”
“Well after ten straight years of nada, guess what ? Now don’t laugh now, I’m serious, yes you guessed it, we have some more Natural Variation only this time, and this is the funny part, really it is, it’s pointing the other way”
” Now some of you might say, why is Natural Variation suddenly so important ?
“And that’s why I can stand here today resplendent in my suit of transparent clothes and tell you unequivocally that this Natural Variation masks a significant problem”
“The problem is that my research funding is likely to dry up. But there’s no reason to worry about that because in seven years the warming will come back. Yes it will folks, believe me, I pinky swear that it will”
“And luckily when it does my friend Al has an answer for it, so if you could be so kind as to give $x Billion to Al and each of his friends, he can make it go away, really he can, I know that because I have been behind the curtain and seen him twiddling his controls”
“Thank you for your attention, and now I’ll take questions about the color of my transparent suit”

Chuck L

Colder water will increase carbon dioxide absorption by the ocean. An additional feedback which may accelerate global cooling.


A naive question perhaps, but what does the PDO actually measure? If it is a temperature index, then a correlation with global temperature is not surprising (the Pacific is very very large) and tells us little.
REPLY: See more here:

Jim Arndt

The big difference this time is that we might be going into a grant minimum for the sun and that would not be good. On the other hand I would like to see the faces of the greenie crowd when 2015 rolls around we are 2C cooler.
Anthony, I just want to respond about rice, my wife and I eat a lot of rice. We buy it in 50 pound bags. 3 months ago it was about $15.00 a bag, now it is almost $35.00. This is not about bio-fuel it is about climate and rice crops in the US are getting hit hard, and this is only the beginning.

Frank Ravizza

So climate can cool naturally, um excuse me “lull”, but it can not warm naturally. Interesting.

Robert S
Is this the paper you were looking for?
REPLY: That looks like it, unfortunately, it’s behind a green wall ($) of Nature, so we can’t read the entire paper, only the abstract. Thank you!

Robert S
The IPCC predicted no warming over the next 20 years?


Of course once again its only a model and published in Nature so even the AGW crowd is listening. What will be the story in 2015 if it cools even more (or just flatlines?) and so on and on and on… LOL. At least IPCC, Governments will not headlong into crazy ideas that are already beginning to cost billions (biofuels) and starve millions and may in fact affect climate through altered land use (re Pielke and company only version of Global warming that is credible)

Neil Fisher

More weather stats from the SH.
In Eastern Australia:
In NSW, coldest was Charlotte’s Pass with a minimum of -10C – not a record but close.
Both Braidwood (NSW south coast) and Tenterfield (North) had minimums of -5C, previous records were -3C at both.
Armidale -3C – previous record -0.3C, while Armidale Airport reached -6C, (grass at -9C)
Glen Innes was at -6C and fell below 0C at 8PM.
Richmond in Sydney’s outer west re-broke the record low set on Tuesday with 2.1C
In Queensland, Roma fell to -0.2, previous record +0.5, while St George fell to +1.1C, previous record +3.3, and Gympie fell to +3.8C, previous record +4.8C.
It’s getting COLD down here! When you add wind chill, it makes for an unpleasant autumn.

Jet Stream

After read all commentaries in the last post’s about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, my question is: Can we really look to this index as a pattern ? With only 2 irregular occurrences in one hundred years and no records before 1900 ?

Your postings are being appreciaed on the following forum, this guy is really up on putting your information into the political context and a very good read. It is nice to see serious blogs working off each other to move the arguments forward against the GW hysteria in the media

Anthony: With the interrelationship between ENSO and the PDO, this looks like an appropriate time for me to raise the cumulative effect of NINO3.4 data and its correlation to global temperature anomaly.

Your postings are being appreciated and put into political contexts on other forums, in particular
I hope you agree a really good read and very good to see serious blogs working off each other to combat junk science and junk politics


Here is a set of questions that should be put to the California OES, FEMA, and every other similar agency world wide:
1) What is your contingency plan for a 10 year cold period?
2) What is your contingency plan for another Maunder Minimum like event?
3) What is your contingency plan for the end of the interglacial?

Harold Morris

UN begins CYA on coming cooling-
Sorry- posted in wrong thread earlier.


REPLY: hundreths
Oh, right. Monthly warming RATE. That makes all the difference! (I thought at first it was an absolute measure. My bad.)


The significance of any correlation between temperature and the PDO would not be in the correlation itself, but in the fact that the PDO is perceived as having defined cycles, and can switch from a warm phase to a cool phase. If the PDO can do that, then why not temperature itself. Or better, if the recent warm phase of the PDO was just a phase, then could the recent warming have been just part of a phase, and not the evidence of alarming “global warming” that the alarmists are always saying?
Jet stream,
Andrew left out, probably because it was overly technical, a spectrum analysis I did of the PDO. It shows that the long phases are “statistically significant,” but not necessarily “harmonic,” meaning that we do have to be cautious about projecting them into the future. I’ve started looking into the Aleutian Low, which is part of the overall climatological environment of the PDO, and it seems to show much better defined cycles. I don’t have the data in front of me, but I think the cycles are roughly 5, 10, and 20 years in length. The index shows a weakened Aleutian Low in 2007 (it is an annual index). The notion that the PDO has long cycles is based on a variety of factors, besides just the PDO index itself.

George M

I am entertained by the various Hansen speculations by Pablo and others. But, just remember, all he has to do is say: “See, I was right the first time.” and refer back to his coming ice age predictions of the 60s. Apparently from the same model(s), just tuned differently. Must need more funding to sort it all out.
BTW, does anyone else find it odd that Hansen is at NASA Space Sciences, and there is an entirely separate NASA agency responsible for studying and reporting terrestrial weather and climate?


“Today I adjusted all the family business. PDO. Gone. AMO. Gone. PSI. Gone. AO. Gone. UHI. Gone. SHAP. Gone. FILENET. Gone. Now you’re gonna have to answer for TOBS.”
“It wasn’t me, I swear. Don’t do this, Jim!”
“Atmoz, you’re my student and I love you. But don’t tell me you never heard of Lampasas station. Because that would insult my intelligence. And that makes me very angry . . .”


its only a model
Perhaps we shall not go there. It is a silly place.


The IPCC predicted no warming over the next 20 years?
The tipping point of no return is 2008. (The proof will be no warming.)

Jeff C

I am amazed at the sudden stampede of the AGW crowd to embrace the PDO affects global temperatures theory. Over the last few days has been like the breaking of a logjam. Not only the study and articles referenced above, but a sudden willingness of formerly belligerent pro-AGW blog commenters and authors to acknowledge what seemed obvious. The PDO Index and the global temp profile correlate.. It is almost as if the NASA announcement about the PDO phase flip has removed the scales from their eyes.
But that can’t be, can it? It seems pretty clear that as long as the PDO was positive, the game plan was to deny any correlation with the hope their agenda would be firmy in place before the inevitable flip. Gaia didn’t cooperate so they are being forced to acknowledge “natural variation” in order to not be completely discredited.
Folks like Joe D’Aleo and others must feel pretty good right now as it seems clear the pro-AGW crowd knew he was right long ago and are finally being forced to admit it.


What is amazing is how gobsmacked they all seem to be. We ignorant flat-earthers have been blathering on for nigh-on a year about how the PDO was cruising for a bruising (being, what, 31 years into a 30-year cycle?) and how there had to be a downturn.
Yet all these pro-AGW types are SO taken aback, even folks like Trenbreth, who, one would think, would have known better.
Yes, Joe D’Aleo will be having his yuks. And so he should.
But let’s give a shout-out to our most excellent sea-witch, good old “Axe” Mörner! He was yelling bloody murder over the IPCC sea level and ocean current issues since around 2001, but no one would listen to him. (Remember the “Freedom Tree”!)

Brian D

Here’s a useful source to keep up on the ENSO status. It’s in PDF format and is updated weekly. Bookmark it for future reference.(if you don’t already have it)


Jeff C, you are right. The likes of Hansen and the rest of the AGW crowd genuinely believed CO2 driven AGW was real and inevitable and all that had to do was wait and the data would prove them unequivocably right. They are now waking up to the fact the data aint going to cooperate any time soon.
I don’t think there is any general realization by these people that CO2 isn’t the dominant climate driver claimed. It’s more that it isn’t the slam-dunk they thought it would be.
Anyway, watch the attempts to shift attention away from the rapidly increasing SH sea ice. If it continues to increase through 2008 (and I expect it will) it will become the elephant in the room that no one can ignore and will trample AGW to death.

Role of the Sun, etc
Visitors to this web log might find the talk I gave on Wednesday April 16 to the EGU Assembly in Vienna relevant.
The Abstract of the presentation is here
and the program here
Attached is the set of ppt slides I used.
As I only had 15 minutes to talk, I limited my presentation to slides 8 to 11 inclusive and 14 to 20 inclusive. I went through slides 8 to 11 rather quickly and concentrated on the interaction effects in slides 14 to 19.
I presented the framework for understanding the role of the Sun in the Earth’s climate dynamics in this very simple way:
in the language of experimental design, the Sun is the independent variable, the Earth is the dependent variable.
More specifically, I explained that there are three classes of solar variables, namely 1. gravitational; 2. what I class together as ‘heliospheric topology, the Sun’s electromagnetic field and material output’; and 3. irradiance. I quickly outlined all the classes of dependent (ie climate dynamic variables) that I listed in the Abstract + the other factors I mentioned there. I also mentioned that this presentation is best understood as a footnote to the science of Rhodes W Fairbridge and referred people to the Wikipedia entry about him.
My argument is that the variables in the class ‘heliospheric topology, the Sun’s electromagnetic field and material output’ have the greatest climate change effects, followed by the gravitational ones, followed by the irradiance ones, but that the amplification effects of the interaction between the solar variables in the way they affect climate vbariables, dominate.
Slides 14 to 19 contain some examples of interaction effects, but there are many more.
I spent about 90 seconds on slide 20 which summarises the central argument about time series analysis, namely that
The Sun-Earth system is a complex, electrodynamically and gravitationally coupled system dominated by nonlinear interactions and nonstationary processes.
The Sun, as a complex dynamic system, generates a wide range of complex perturbations affecting the climate system as a complex non-linear, non-stationary system.
I am now preparing a paper for a referred scientific journal based on the slides. I should point out that the statements in the slides are not carefully argued, they are merely assertions. But they are all anchored to the scientific literature. Of course, all this means is that they stand until falsified by subsequent work.
Amongst other things, I hope this presentation, and the subsequent published paper, goes some way to addressing the key theme that to understand the role of the Sun in our climate dynamics, you need to look at the totality of solar phenomena.
I emphasise in the attached that when you do so, the interaction effects between the various solar variables (the independent variables in the language of experimental design) dominate.
Here is the power point set of slides as a pdf
The pdf is a large file (6.6mb) so takes a little while to download – you may have a blank browser window that appears as if nothing much is happening while the file downloads, before it displays.
Please keep in mind that it is a power point presentation, so nothing is carefully argued and linked to the published papers that are the primary sources. I’ve included a bibliography, but it is very incomplete. For example, I have not cited the papers of the two distinguished Japanese meteorologists Kunihiko Kodera and Yuhji Kuroda who have published extensively about the role of the Sun in regulating to some extent the major atmospheric/oceanic ossicilations such as NAM, QBO, ENSO.
I get the sense that the the immensely complex climate system is finely balanced. Solar effects may require the conjunction of several factors. If some are absent or not at the requiste level, nothing much might happen. Different processes seem to function around solar max and solar min. There are other proceeses apart from radiant heating at work. For example, chemical and dynamic. In this regard, the two Japansese scientists have developed the elements of a dynamic theory featuring the planetary waves. As I read all of the work summarised in my ppt slides, it is work-in-progress, could not be regarded as settled (is science ever settled?) and as good as the last published paper that reported the finding.
Richard Mackey

Anthony – just to point out that the cooling phase from 1943 through the 1960s kicks off with a 10Be anomaly indicating low solar and or terrestrial magnetic activity.
With the Sun quiet now I wonder if Earth is currently exposed to higher cosmic ray flux?
I can’t get 2008 data on cosmic ray activity to download from Climax. The 2007 data don’t appear to show anything unusual – but I’m not much of an expert here.
It would be interesting to know what is going on in that department. I am not wedded to Svensmark’s cosmic cloud theory but past correlation between solar / terrestrial magnetism (d14C) and temperature variations appears convincing which suggests to me there is likely some link.
If you send me an email I’ll send you some charts – but I’m away for 5 days?

Anthony: I didn’t notice anyone answering your question about a link to the letter in “Nature”. Roger Pielke Jr has it attached to his unfavorable opinion on climate models:
The Nature link:
Based on the blurb it appears to deal primarily with the AMO and ENSO,

And here’s a link to the Supplementary info on the Nature paper:

Matt Lague

Just one slightly bemusing thought – many of the current AGW crowd may not live long enough to see any resumption of warming, depending on the length of this cycle! Sorry if that’s a bit morbid, but sobering nonetheless. Will Al still be trying to trad carbon with a fur coat on? On a rocking chair perhaps? Matty

Pierre Gosselin

The Germans are by no means reversing their views. But they are beginning to cover their Hinterns.
It is indeed highly amusing to watch them scramble and modify what they have been claiming up to now as “settled science”.
Mojib Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany is by no means objective. I’ve heard enough of his interviews on radio, etc. He’s right up there, right at home, with the science-propogandists of Schellnhuber and Ramstorf, obstinately, arrogantly claiming everything is known and the science is settled.
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg has also been guilty (in my view) of practising the same type of pig-headed, obstinate, politically correct science. Now they risk making these formerly highly respectable and esteemed institutes look like the laughing stocks of science.
Some people simply refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

Pierre Gosselin

You can read the English version of the Leibnitz Institute’s press release here:
In this release they admit much what we’ve been trying to tell them for years:
1. The models are inadequate
2. They’ve lacked data
3. The models have not taken oceans enough into account
4. Other factors (still not taken into account) have substantial effects on climate.
LOL! Read at the end how Prof. Latif installs a giant garage-sized back door:
“Of course, always with the assumption that no other unforeseen effects such as volcanic eruptions occur, which can have a substantial effect on our climate as well”. LOL!

Rob R

I notice on “Umbrella Blog” in a recent posting by John Page that he refers to the AGW crowd as “Theologically Correct” rather than Politically or Scientifically correct. I think that is quite apt. The theology may need to be expanded a bit in light of global weather patterns of late.
Although some of the AGWers are now beginning to better recognise the significance of natural cycles like the PDO I suspect it will be some time before they begin any serious rexamination of the shortcommings of the standard Greenhouse Gas theory. With luck a few of the more prominent members of the Team may at least cool the rhetoric for a while.
I suspect that we could be in for a substantial long term increase in basic energy and food prices If this eventuates it will see the public begin to ask some very hard questions of the Politicians (votes really do count) who in turn may apply the blow torch to some elements of the AGW crowd, the eco-extremeists and the IPCC. Nobody will want to be seen to be responsible. So I predict we will also see a few notables ducking for cover.
Rob R

Gary Prince
Pierre Gosselin
Pierre Gosselin
pablo an ex pat

The BBC have published an article on line, it is of course well sanitized. It wil be interesting to see how many revisions this one goes through as they receive pressure from the zealots.

I’ve added the PDO Index to if anyone wants to play with it… For example, here’s a 12-month running mean and a Fourier low-pass to show the overall signal:
and here’s a comparison with HADCRUT3 global temperature:
finally, here’s a similar idea to Anthony’s graph above, with differentation of the temperature signal:
… but note that Fourier is very sensitive to edge effects, especially when differentiated – the sudden drop at the end is not real, it’s an artefact of the Fourier process (which is expecting a repeating signal) trying to make the opposite ends join up.
REPLY: Thanks Paul, if you haven’t visited this site, give it a try. Online interactive climate analysis an totally free. Paul has done a wonderful job here.


When asked the question “What has to happen to discredit AGW predictions”, I’ve seen Gavin Schmidt, on Realclimate, type the words “at least 1 decade of non or negative temperature trend.”
What rationalization will he and the rest of his lackeys come up with in 2018 when it’s been 20 years without eclipsing the 1998 record?

Dear Ms. Marohasy,
I deeply regret to observe that, despite your reporting of the “global cooling to 2015” story, you have failed to make any mention in your blog of Heartland Institute’s recent list of scientists who have cast doubts on global warming. Here is a sample of the list, available via :
… Rahmstorf, Stefan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; Randall, David, A., NASA; Ratto, N., University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Raymo, Maureen, MIT; Reeh, Niels, Technical University of Denmark; Reynolds, C.P., University of Waikato, New Zealand; Richard, Y., University of Cape Town, S. Africa; Richter, D.K., Ruhr-University, Germany; Rietti-Shati, M., Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel; Rind, David, NASA; Ritz, C., French National Center for Scientific Research; Roberts, Neil, Loughborough University of Technology, UK; Rodrigo, F.S., University of Almerla, Spain; Roth, Kurt, University of Heidelberg, Germany; Rouault, M., University of Bourgogne, France; Ruddiman, William F., University of Virginia; Running, Steven E., University of Montana; Sabade, S.S., Indian Institute of Meteorology; Sagarin, R.D., University of California/Santa Barbara; Salinger, M. J., National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New; Zealand; Sanchez Goni, M.F., University of Bordeaux; Sarnthein, Michael, University of Kiel, Germany; Sass, Louis C., III, Colorado College; Sawada, Michael, University of Ottawa; Saxe, Henrik, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural School of Denmark; Schilman, Bettina, Geological Survey of Israel; Schmidt, Gavin J., University of Virginia; Schmith, Torben, Danish Meteorological Institute; Schoell, Martin, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.; Schuster, P.F., USGS; Schweingruber, F.H., Swiss Federal Research Institute; Servant, Marie, Orstom, France; Servant-Vildary, Simone, French National Museum of Natural History; Severinghaus, Jeffrey P., Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Shaviv, Nir, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Shemesh, Aldo, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel; Shen, Pu Yu, University of Western Ontario; Shindell, Drew T., NASA; Shoji, H., Kitami Institute of Technology, Japan; Showers, William, North Carolina State; Siddoway, Christine, Colorado College; Sidorova, O.V., Sukachev Institute of Forest, Russia; Sigman, Daniel M., Princeton University; Simmons, A.D., University of Leeds; Slingo, Anthony, Hadley Centre, UK; Smith Ronald Lewis, British Antarctic Survey; Smith, Raymond C., University of California/Santa Barbara; Soden, Brian, J., NOAA; Sohlenius, Gunnar, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology; Sonechkin, Dmitry M., Hydrometeorological Research Centre of Russia;
Soon, Willie, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Atmospheric Research; Sousa, A., University of Sevilla; Southward, A.J., Marine Biological Association; Spaulding, W. Geoffrey, University of Arizona; Stammerjohn, Sharon, University of California/Santa Barbara; Steffenson, J.P., University of Copenhagen; Stockton, Charles W., University of Arizona; Stone, John, University of Washington; Street-Perrott, Alayne A., Oxford University; Stuiver, Minze, University of Washington; Sturm, Matthew, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research; Sud, Y.C., Goddard Institute; Sugden, David E., University of Edinborough, Scotland; Sun, Weizhen, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Susskind, Joel, Goddard Institute; Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E., University of Iceland; Svenared, O., University of Stockholm; Svensmark, Hendrik, Danish Space Research Institute; Tape, Kenneth, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research; Tappa, Eric, University of South Carolina; Thomas, Chris D., University of Leeds; Thompson, L.G., Ohio State; …
As a concerned citizen and defender of freedom and all that it stands for, I have a few questions I need to ask. May I know why you are being silent on the Heartland 500 list, and the oppression from the scientific inquisiton against the academics that are mentioned on the list? Has your good self been intimidated by the forces of the Left into keeping quiet as well? Is your blog now selling out to the freedom-destroying agenda of Al Gore?
I would appreciate it if you can offer me answers to my humble questions. Thank you.
— Frank Bi, International Journal of Inactivism,
REPLY: This isn’t Ms. Marohasy’s blog, I think maybe you are confused as to who runs this one?

Bill Illis

You know, the slight temperature decline caused by shifts in the PDO (a few tenths of a degree either way) can not actually cause the world to cool (like it did in 2007 and predicted to in the near future now) …
… if the climate models are correct about the CO2 sensitivity estimates being 3.0C per doubling +/- 1.5C. Increasing CO2 should overwhelm the the PDO signal.
The sensitivity estimate is by far the most important figure in the global warming debate. If the sensitivity is a low number like 1.0C to 1.5C per doubling, then global warming will not be a problem at all. If the sensitivity is on the high end of the range, 4.5C, then global warming will be a very significant problem.
But if the PDO can mask the CO2 impact for any significant period of time, the actual sensitivity number is on the low end and might even be as low as 1.0C per doubling. 1.0C of warming by 2100, another 1.0C over the following 1000 years, big deal.


RE: Robert Wood (16:31:44) :
“The AGW is being masked by natural occurances.
I can already see Hansen’s press conference.”
Perhaps Hansen, in his creative formula’s for a warming trend, regardless of what is actually happening, will calculate his GISS to include an “adjustment” to compensate for PDO cooling?

Pierre Gosselin

Hurry up and read it before it changes!