The reason for 'the pause' in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: 'trade winds'

Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?

There is no scientific basis for the claim that short term correlations manifest into long term correlations. In other words, its just as likely trade winds weaken because of a lack of warming, rather than the other way around. Why bother?

Ah yes, I think I have it now … once again we introduce a NEW component to the ‘models’, a component conveniently overlooked until now, sort of a fail safe, in case the agenda needs one, and poof, the projections are back on track. Trade winds DATA, we don’t need no stinking data ! Oh, and please ignore SST’s and the reclusive El Nino’s that are supposed to be ravaging the Western Pacific tropics.
Yep, this time, our ‘work’ is finished here …

Now that`s one way wacky explanation…

So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.

Interesting.
They keep telling us that any up-tick in temperatures must be from CO2 released by mankind — and only by mankind — but that the lack of increase or any decrease in temperatures (God forbid!) must be due to natural causes. Come on guys, the average person will see through this double standard if you keep that sort of thing going.

It says that when the trade winds return to normal the heat will come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.
No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature. This is not only a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, but goes against common sense. This heat cannot any longer come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.

Warmist acquaintances do not let an opportunity pass to violently scream at me that the world is not only still heating up but that each and every year is hotter than the previous one. According to them, any paper that speaks of a “pause” is financed by Big Oil and written by deniers. I submit to their 95% infallible wisdom.

AFAIK the ARGO buoys haven’t detected this “missing heat” below the surface of the Eastern Pacific…unless of course the trade winds have somehow converted it into “stealth heat”, or “dark energy”. But if it’s still stealth heat when it “inevitably” surfaces, how will we detect it? 🙂

It seems that the team have discovered ENSO, as I caught an interview about a month ago when a CSIRO spokesman on local television mentioned that the heat will return when El Nino returns, the present pause being a temporary La Nina pattern.
Lo and behold this thought bubble appears in a paper; do they get together to discuss strategy ?
They are desperate to explain the pause, but there is a lot of cold water out there.

Ken Hall says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:03 am
So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.
———————————————————————————————————
yep, that akes a lot of logical sense. Or you can try the Party Line version of the same:
“There are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be exactly offsetting the CO2 warming by pure fluke. There is no regulatory mechanism involved, just all these thousands of processes of things that happen to be occurring by pure random chance at the right time, and the right magnitude, to exactly counteract the expected warming at the moment”
Personally, if they believe in those odds, I’d suggest they should be buying lottery tickets right now.

As an experimental physicist I was surprised and not impressed to see the methods section call the model running/tuning/twerking they did “experiments.” My notion of an experiment has a good bit more involvement of reality.

If the ‘lost heat’ has disappeared into the depths of ocean why have the ARGO buoys not detected the heated water as it passes them when descending into the ‘not to deep’ regions of the Eastern Pacific? Has this mythical heat developed stealth techniques to avoid detection by all of the Buoys?
RESnape

of course, Matthew England is from the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, which also boasts has Chris Turney in their ranks. anyone keeping up with the number of papers being published, involving UNSW in the past couple of months?
Australia may be a small country, population-wise, but when it comes to CAGW, we like to punch way above our weight….more illustrious-in-their-own-minds signatories at the link:
14 June 2011: The Conversation: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate…
Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity…
We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence…
SIGNATORIES:
Signatories
Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA
Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ
Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

Actually there is an old Yiddish saying that Professor Matthew England may be aware of and that is when things don’t happen like you said any excuse is as good as another. But I am sure that students from the Uni of NSW probably know not to blame the dog when they haven’t done their homework but rather that the wind blew it away.
But I love these excuses from taxpayers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom for not getting their tax return in on time:
1. My pet goldfish died (self-employed builder);
2. I had a run-in with a cow (Midlands farmer);
3. After seeing a volcanic eruption on the news, I couldn’t concentrate on anything else (London woman);
4. My wife won’t give me my mail (self-employed trader);
5. My husband told me the deadline was 31 March, and I believed him (Leicester hairdresser);
6. I’ve been far too busy touring the country with my one-man play (Coventry writer);
7. My bad back means I can’t go upstairs. That’s where my tax return is (a working taxi driver);
8. I’ve been cruising round the world in my yacht, and only picking up post when I’m on dry land (South East man);
9. Our business doesn’t really do anything (Kent financial services firm); and
10. I’ve been too busy submitting my clients’ tax returns (London accountant).
But how about these excuses from drivers when picked up by the Canadian Highway Patrol:
Ticketed driver – “My dad could buy you.”
Officer – “Get him to buy two of me, I could use the help.”
Driver – “I wasn’t speeding and you didn’t see a phone, it was a hamburger.”
Officer – “That you held to your ear and is gone?”
Driver – “I’m a lawyer.”
Officer – “Excellent, I’m a policeman.” Long silence.
Driver stopped by police exits car and says “I wasn’t driving”. Still seated passenger points at self and says “I was”.
School zone speeder – “You only stopped me because I’m in a Porsche!”
Officer – “No because you are a *&%$ in a Porsche.”
I don’t think Professor England is a *&%$ or drives a Porsche but we WILL be watching the Pacific trade wind speeds with great interest from now on.

The people that wrote this are making Celestial Spheres arguments. Every time a flaw is found add another Sphere. The design becomes more and more elaborate until it collapses when a simple and correct explanation is found.

I just wanted to see if they based this on actual observations, but ’cause the Nature paper costs, I scanned the references. Most are for model based evidence, so not much use but one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract) seemed to be based on actual measurements and it says “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.”
Is that for real? Can our mobile instruments like the Argo buoys really make measurements with such accuracy that we can say 0.09C? Seems small to me but I guess the volume is massive so if true it represents a lot of heat.
It seems to me that this trade wind explanation is more model based evidence rather than based on actual measurements of heat in the ocean.

As the carbon dioxide religion carries on its decomposing, the climate hysterics are getting more and more desperate. They are thrashing around for any explanation, no matter how ludicrous, to explain the failures of all their predictions and the failures of every climate model they have ever produced. This is their latest effort to keep the global warming gravy train running.
This is from a report from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/scientists-find-explanation-for-global-warming-pause/5248456
I have added my own comments in order to point out their more ridiculous and absurd assertions, their weasel words (which remove the certainty of their predictions) and to make some points of my own. Any student of mine presenting such a paper would undoubtedly score an F.
*****
Global warming: Australian scientists say strong winds in Pacific behind pause in rising temperatures
By environment and science reporter Jake Sturmer
Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled. Sceptics say the slowdown suggests warming is not as bad as first thought, while most climate scientists say it is just a natural climate variability.
Now an Australian-led team of researchers has found strong winds in the Pacific Ocean are most likely to be behind the hiatus.
The study found that the winds were churning the Pacific like a washing machine, bringing the deeper colder water to the surface and pushing the warmer water below. [The laws of the universe being reversed when convenient to climate hysterics.]
But University of New South Wales (UNSW) researcher Matthew England, part of the team which carried out the research, said he did not expect the effect to last : “The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said. [Strange nobody mentioned it before.]
“We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field. [Which field is this? The field you just made up?]
“It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse back to their normal levels [What are these “normal” levels? You never commit a number by which you can be judged.], we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise.” [Great expectations?]
Professor England rejects the argument from sceptics that the slowdown suggests global warming is not as bad as first thought and that the climate models are not working : “We want the community to have confidence in the climate models,” he said. [Which models would that be? So far, despite the billions spent, all they have ever produced is garbage.]
“They are very good but in this instance the wind acceleration has been that strong and that much stronger than what the models projected.”
Scientists used satellite measurements and an array of floats in the Pacific to observe two-decades worth of temperature and current information. The CSIRO’s Steve Rintoul said understanding the oceans was the key to understanding climate change. [And I thought it was all about carbon dioxide! Isn’t that what you grant junkies have been preaching all along?]
“What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean ocean warming,” Dr Rintoul said. [So it’s nothing to do with atmospheric warming, after all? Does the IPCC know this?]
“Over the last 50 years, 90% of the extra heat that’s been stored by the earth is found in the ocean. [Where, exactly, in the ocean is this massive heat storage to be found? And how did it get there? Describe this mechanism and why it might suddenly reverse itself.]
“So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking in the ocean to understand it.” [Or better still, stop trying to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.]
The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Which should be ashamed of itself.]

Everybody! Go outside, face North and wave your hands! We can offset the Polar Vortex and save the planet!!1!!!!!

The bottom line is the science isn’t settled. The CAGW model probably contained only what are called main effects and no interaction terms (aka feedback and feed forward effects). What’s an interaction term? Oh something like the combination of increased clouds or aerosols decreasing the effect of CO2. Therefore the model is incapable of prefidicting anything.
They don’t understand what’s causing the pause therefore they don’t know how long the pause will last which could be indefinitely long.

so basically a smidgeon of warming leads to 17+ years of static temps, so when the smidgeon of warming returns we go back to 17 +years of static temps.
haha what’s the worry.

Perhaps the heat is holding hands with Higgs Bosons or perhaps it is hiding in another dimension? One day we will find it with the help of a particle accelerator?

Sometimes, hand waving is very effective. Late Boris Yeltsin, as everybody knows, hand waved the USSR out of existence. Amazing feat for a man who barely could speak (when sober), leave alone write! Today, President B. Hussein Obama is hand-waving the USA out of existence, and has already almost succeeded. How could a mere “global warming hiatus” survive a well-coordinated, public grant-driven hand waving?

P.S. Bob Dylan’s “poetry” is a poorly rhymed attempt to push socialist buttons. If there would be any music to speak of, accompanying this jabber… but there ain’t.

The Trade Winds have strengthened some lately.
I once wrote a post here called the “The Trade Winds Drive the ENSO”. Today, I would rename it to “The Eastern/Central Pacific Ocean Temperatures Drive the Trade Winds which Acts as an Amplifier to the ENSO”. The ENSO amplifies itself through the Trade Winds.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-trade-winds-drive-the-enso/
Well, what have the Trades and the ENSO been doing lately. Same correlation continues, up to January 2014.
http://s10.postimg.org/dmx91hlbd/Trade_Winds_Nino_Jan2014.png
And there is NO discernible trend in the Pacific Trade Winds going back to 1871. (Not surprising since there is no trend in the ENSO going back to 1871 and given the tight correlation between these two, there should be no trend in the Pacific Trade Winds either).
http://s16.postimg.org/vtt28xi6t/Trade_Winds_1871_to_2014.png
But they have strengthened some lately on average, probably because of the extent of cool water in the Eastern/Central Pacific for the past 8 years, on average.
But this is Natural Variability. The Pacific Winds and the ENSO have doing this for at least 400 million years.

The plethora of “reasons” for the pause all comes down to a simple explanation:

One thing for certain, even though the media is going predictably berserkers over this paper, the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2.

They (alarmists) rolled a string of 7s in a row, and declared a new normal of all 7s. But the string had to stop sometime.

Robert Westfall said:
February 10, 2014 at 2:34 am
“The people that wrote this are making Celestial Spheres arguments. Every time a flaw is found add another Sphere. The design becomes more and more elaborate until it collapses when a simple and correct explanation is found.”
You are so, so correct. Once again they demonstrate there is no deep, underlying understanding of how the climate works, just a stapled-together mess of what they are familiar with and what they can model. Nothing more.

The paper admits to the “hiatus” AND to the fact the models are wrong (do not take into account trade winds). And yet it still adds to the consensus.

“….So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

They are buying more time to continue their snouts in the funding trough. I wonder whether the heat from the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period are still lurking in the deep?

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming.

Well that’s just fine and dandy. So during the ‘hottest decade on the records’ the Pacific trade winds strengthened.

Letter To Nature – 2006
Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing
……….Observed Indo-Pacific sea level pressure reveals a weakening of the Walker circulation. The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing. The climate model indicates that the weakened surface winds have altered the thermal structure and circulation of the tropical Pacific Ocean. These results support model projections of further weakening of tropical atmospheric circulation during the twenty-first century4, 5, 7.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04744.html

Which way it is? Trade wins are weakening or strengthening?
Nature 2006: Global warming weakens Pacific winds
Nature 2014: Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060501/full/news060501-5.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

I thought all the excess heat was being stored in the oceans deep, deep abyss. This story tells us that it’s just below the surface. Menacing. Like a blood thirsty shark. (sarc)

The idea that the missing heat is going into the oceans is ridiculous!
Quite obviously it is the land that is absorbing the missing heat — and this is causing faster continental drift. The continents have become highly energized and, like a group of five year olds at play, they can’t sit still. The continents will eventually wear themselves out and nap time will come and the missing heat will be returned to the atmosphere with a vengeance.
Is that clear to everyone?
Eugene WR Gallun

How long before it’s claimed that recent reductions in GHG are the cause of the hiatus? Our policies are working!

Seriously, why the F* is this article being taken seriously by anyone?
Look at their first graph again, then look at this
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/arx/ENSO/LaNina.png
(which can be compared to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/arx/ENSO/ElNino.png )
They are apparently just now on the cusp of figuring out what a La Nina / Negative phase PDO is.
This is the problem when you base absolutely all of your assumptions off a very short, specific amount of time, and never even ponder natural cycles. In their case, they have a start date of 1979, the very beginning of a Positive/ElNino phase (a strong one at that, with two “Super El Ninos”). And when all your inputted data is from the beginning of a certain cycle, what eventually happens? The cycle switches and everything you think you knew is turned completely on its head…
The Phases themselves are apparently very consistently 31 years long, and the new Negative one began in 2008 according to NASA (which perfectly lines up with the 1977 change to Positive, the last Negative which began in 1946, and I suspect a 1915 cycle period as the claimed 1925 switch doesn’t seem to line up well with trends before or after it) Since the 2008 flip, La Ninas have been seen in 5 of the 6 years (following a pounding of El Ninos in the preceding decade). With La Nina, of course, being… the conditions they are describing as being “unprecedented”
End results:
http://oi59.tinypic.com/9tiw4w.jpg
Now the problem for them is, it is going to last until 2039
And then the next, even bigger problem for them becomes the fact <b<this Negative Phase is coinciding with a possible new Dalton or worse, Maunder Minimum instead of the PDO Cycle+Modern Maximum we saw from 1915-1996.
Remember what they all said during a slight return to normal Solar Activity when it was coupled with a Negative Cycle during the early 1970s? We were all going to die from Global Cooling because the Arctic Ice was increasing at an ‘unprecedented pace’ and the cold winters were destroying crops around much of the world. What if that had happened with a real, actual “sleeping Sun”, as we apparently are about to experience now?
All I can say is, good thing we accumulated a bit of heat during that Modern Maximum! I do hope it sticks around a little while longer though, as this Negative Cycle could end up being a real nasty one

“Men say they know many things;
But lo! they have taken wings, —
The arts and sciences,
And a thousand appliances;
The wind that blows
Is all that any body knows”
– Henry David Thoreau

Its really the temperature of the water in the eastern equatorial Pacific which drives the Pacific Trade Winds.
When the eastern equatorial Pacific is colder than average (still warmer than your backyard, but cooler than normal for the region), there is less convection, more wind blows to the west as a result instead of getting caught up in convection cells.
The stronger winds pull up more cooler water from below at the Galapagos Islands, and the surface gets even colder. In addition, when the east is cooler than average, the western side is usually warmer, so there is more convection on the western side and the winds blow even stronger to the west to replace the rising air. Nice self-amplifying oscillation.
Here is the upper ocean temperature anomaly in the eastern Pacific versus the Trade Wind Index. Not hard to see what is going on. It leads the Trade Winds and the ENSO itself.
http://s29.postimg.org/kjzx0fduf/EUOHA_Trade_Winds_Jan14.png
And then the upper ocean temperature anomaly versus the Nino 3.4 Index.
http://s2.postimg.org/hqug7xvkp/EUOHA_Nino_Jan14.png
Upper ocean Pacific temperature data.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
I don’t see no global warming.

l think the cooling in the eastern Pacific is linked to the increase in the jet stream activity above that area. l have noticed this by watching the global jet stream maps and the full disk satilite images over recent years. What seems to be happening is that the pushes of cold air southwards over north America and in the Pacific are powering up the jet stream over the eastern Pacific. So what’s been happening is that quite often a powerful jet stream starts to form over the eastern Pacific and is taking warm moist air from the eastern Pacific over the Atlantic and into Europe. Which has been the reason for the UK mild and wet winter this year.
Also with the increase in the jet stream pushing south over the Pacific there has been increase in where the jet stream crosses over from the NH to the SH and the other way round over the eastern Pacific. Which in turn increases the weather activity, wind speeds, and flow of warm air from this area and so is helping to cool off the eastern Pacific.

Yet another “explanation” in a string of explanations. Stripped of all the convoluted rationalizations, this tells me that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

F.A.H. says: @ February 10, 2014 at 1:45 am
As an experimental physicist I was surprised and not impressed to see the methods section call the model running/tuning/twerking they did “experiments.” My notion of an experiment has a good bit more involvement of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Welcome to post normal science, where methods and data are not only not needed but jealously guarded, computer runs produce “Experimental Data” and the get out of peer-review free card. “Mankind is to blame” is mandatory for publication.
{:>)

markx says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:49 am
Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?
============================================================
Al Gore took a trip to the EU and was speaking while facing west. 🙂

Pat Feb 10, 2:03 am publishes a veritable rogues gallery of NSW climate miscreants. Heavy burden indeed.

I can’t help but notice, despite being willing to convolute the explanations and the models beyond anything that resembles reality, no one has theorized that some heretofore unknown process is allowing heat to escape the Earth’s atmosphere into space. Funny that.
More wibbly wobbly, climey wimey…stuff.

Richard M says: @ February 10, 2014 at 4:58 am
Like the Defenestration of Prague or real <a href="http://janetnewenham.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/444.jpg"<pier review. Josh on the subject link
It is getting bad when the only reaction you can have to “peer – reviewed” climate science is a good belly laugh.

Taking their research at face value:
1) There’s no evidence that human CO2 plays any role in changing trade wind velocity thus it introduces a new totally natural factor that they have in general up to now, always DENIED as being possible to exist in any explanation of late 20th century warming.
2) It suggests a possible parallel reason for the similarity of warming from 1910 to 1945 to that of 1965 to 2000, thus introducing more doubt as to the role of CO2 given that the latter warming period was less in magnitude despite a higher concentration of CO2. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend
I see no reason to get worked up about this study – it may turn out to be a bullet that goes through their foot.

And if this new factor helps explain the cooling from ~1945 to ~1960 their attribution to aerosols takes a serious hit too.

Rob Dawg says: “No, my grant money will go to a sustainable sailing yacht and to save money will be crewed by coeds that just happen to be my grad class students.”
Oh do I have the perfect craft for you!
http://www.pdracer.com/sailboat-games/water-world-race/waterworld-trimaran-sailboat-2.jpg

Trrenberth says the heat is hiding deep, below the Argo depths. But this paper says the heat is hidingin shallow water, just waiting on the winds to subside and then re-emerge.
It cannot be both. The answer is very likely that it is neither.

nutso fasst says: “Strong winds have intensified ocean currents, disturbing settled science.”
– stirring up the bottom, reducing visibility and thus making their predictions …. very murky.

They admit that previously the models did not include the trade winds, but trust us, they were still completely accurate.

Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.
As always, the test will be future, out of sample, data.

Mike M.:
Yes, I sense a turbidity in the farce.

Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century. Here is another one: carbon dioxide has steadily increased during this century. Can you tell me how these observations are connected? No? Then you must be a climate scientist. These people were told by Hansen that putting more carbon dioxide in the air warms it Greenhouse effect is what he called it. IPCC picked it right up and has been promoting the greenhouse effect for 25 years now. It is impossible for them to believe observations that absolutely deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. By now there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 17 years. That is two thirds of the time that IPCC has even existed. Probably billions of research money has gone into futile attempts to prove the reality of a non-existent greenhouse warming. Their “proof” of greenhouse warming leans on Hansen. In 1988 he asserted in front of the Senate that the greenhouse warming had arrived. Hansen had no idea what he was talking about. He just observed an El Nino and thought it was greenhouse.

From my research their most common explanations for the pause are:
1. It was caught in a mudslide
2. Eaten by a lion
3. Got run over by a crappy purple scion.
I’m leaning toward number 3.

tonyb: On what basis is this strengthening said to be unprecedented?
They have some model output (this is presented at Bob Tisdale’s web page), but they admit that the model output for earlier years is not very “constrained” by actual measurements. The claim does not have what might be termed a “strong foundation”.
I can’t get behind the paywall either. rats. The paper is probably worth reading.

Notwithstanding the inaccurate rendition of the Hadley circulation… that does not touch surface in Mid Latitudes… See Leroux.

I’m sorry, maybe I’ve missed it.
Is there any data actually showing the stronger trade winds, or is this just something they fed into the model?
Also; it’s kind of a chicken and the egg question; couldn’t the decrease in the temp trend result in stronger trade winds?
Just curious.

well I have only one thing to say about that.
As global coverage of the ARGO buoy data increases, the measured rate of heat content accumulation in the deep ocean goes up. This indicates that the ARGO buoy DIRECT MEASURMENT data of the deep ocean is robust and indisputable.