Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

clip_image002_thumb.pngEl Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

Updated key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
R. Shearer

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Leonard Weinstein

R. Shearer,
It does not matter if natural cooling exactly cancelled out AGW, or if there is no significant AGW. The supporters of CAGW insisted that CO2 is the main force that drives average temperature, and insisted it would totally dominate any natural variation (except short term volcanic effects). Skeptics have contended that either the forcing was much smaller than promoted, so that it was not a real problem, or that natural variation dominated the human CO2 contribution, so that it was not the main controlling method. These skeptics positions have been supported with actual data evidence, although which of the two factors is more important is not fully resolved.
The issue was the possible onset of a major rising temperature problem due to CO2 increase, and it has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is significant reason to think an average cooling trend for at least several decades is more likely than a warming trend, following the plateau.

Rick K

Wonderful information. Much appreciated, Christopher.

Does WFT use a different method for calculations? The reason I ask is that WFT gives a positive slope of “slope = 1.25851e-05 per year” for 214 months. However the slopes is negative “slope = -0.000162934 per year” for 213 months.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the negative slope for 213 months is an order of magnitude more than the positive slope for 214 months, so to the nearest month, 214 could be argued for.
The anomaly of 0.350 is the fifth highest July. A record is out of reach since the average for the remaining five months must now be 0.946 which has never been reached.
With an average over seven months of 0.267, RSS is now ranked 6th.
1 {1998, 0.550},
2 {2010, 0.472},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.32},
5 {2002, 0.315},
6 {2007, 0.256},
7 {2001, 0.246},
8 {2006, 0.231}

richard

amazing considering the temp jiggery-pokery by GISS over the last few decades.

It is time for the people to CLOSE THE EPA before they bankrupt the people and industries.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html

MikeB

The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation

This doesn’t seem right to me. Satellites infer Earth temperatures at various altitudes by examining microwave radiation emitted by oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere. If they look spaceward there won’t be any oxygen and so I do not see how they can calibrate themselves that way.
But, I am no expert in this field. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable (Dr. Roy Spencer for example) would care to comment.

Richard M

The recent El Niño conditions of the Pacific have no doubt added a little to the anomaly. And, since this added warmth looks like it will have been exhausted by the end of August I look for another cooling off this fall and winter to low anomaly value as we’ve seen over the last several years. If this happens then the start date of the pause will revert back to around the first of July. Early 2015 could easily see the pause stretch to 18.5 years.

Cheshirered

Two points if I may.
Firstly, isn’t it time the IPCC’s prediction of 4.8C by 2100 is properly refuted? Observations and reducing climate sensitivity estimates indicate such an outlandish prediction has no credibility whatsoever. It would appear to be retained by the IPCC solely to allow alarmist headline writers a free hand.
Secondly, could Lord M be so kind as to explain in layman’s terms what is the actual definition of “no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years”? Is it the margin of measuring error or something else? Thanks.

Baart1980

What after el Nino ends ?

Richard M

One thing I find strange is a positive anomaly for the continental US. Although it is low, I thought most of the country was experiencing quite cool conditions.

Charlie

‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..

ACTUALLY
it has been globally cooling
when you throw the dice three times
and it comes up “cooling”
three times
what can you say?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
(look at the graphs at the end of each table)

mark in toledo

“It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..”
Charlie…of course it can. If the two new months of temperatures require that we drop the earliest two months to find the “length of the pause” then that’s exactly what can (and did) happen. remember the question…”How long back can we go and show totally flat temperatures?” the answer to that question can be the same in length for 6 months in a row, if the early months were cool…..

I thought global warming wasn’t the issue anymore. Isn’t it all about “climate change” now?

GeeJam

So, how many unnecessary trillions have been squandered – in an attempt to “remedy” 17 years and 10 months of non-existent warming? Frightening. Just frittering it all away on a whim.
Thank you MiLord. Just adore the line where you say “Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”

Don Keiller

Another Green “expert” exposed.
“He has published nothing on [shale gas] in any proper scientific forum – no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo-scientific scaremongering. He falsely claims to be a chartered geologist. That’s fraudulent. It’s wilful untruth. I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the university by someone who never fails to use his university affiliation.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/8/2/smythe-busted.html

Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This lack of warming is real. I just checked the NCDC temperatures and got a cooling trend of 0.03°C/Decade from 2005 to 2013. NCDC is the database that shows the shortest “pause”, only from around 2005.

Neil

There’s still an el-Nino forming?

highflight56433

Another example of lying with statistics rather than thinking scientific fact: CO2 has a lower heat index than water vapor. Therefore, diluting the atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration lowers the overall heat index of the atmosphere. If I wanted to heat planet Mars atmosphere I would add what? ANS: Water vapor. Point being, claiming our impact on increasing CO2 as the driving force for global warming is bunk. 🙂

Ex-expat Colin

The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee unqualified majority believe the IPCC current status. The two qualified (Lilley/Stringer) said its IPCC BS more or less. Ms Lucas has given Milliband a letter slagging Stringer off.
The weather here in Worcestershire is bright/warm and the plants love it….C02 works for the good. Grapes abundant soon.
Just ordering my two new Diesel electric sets and building a vast fuel tank. Do I need CCS?

Lance Wallace

“auto-regression” is a meaningless term–you mean “autocorrelation.” And whether there is so little you can ignore it requires more proof than the simple claim. And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future. McKitrick has lately presented a new econometric approach that searches time series data for a possible breakpoint or step change. Using all the temperature data from about 1959, their method finds a breakpoint occurring in 1976 IIRC that in fact corresponds to the Great Pacific Shift (identified by great changes in fishery populations and other observations). For the 17 years before 1976 and the 38 years afterward, the best fit is in fact two lines each of zero slope, offset by an upward jump of something less than a degree C in 1976. My computer is acting up presently so I can’t provide a link, but it was featured in WUWT a couple of days ago.

urederra

R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”

Short answer: Nobody knows.
Long answer: In order to reply to that question first we must know very accurately how the natural cycles work and what the human contribution to warming (and cooling, I guess) is. We do not know either of those, partly because we need to know the Earth’s heat balance and the only thing we have are some poorly maintained and highly adjusted temperature datasets.

PMHinSC

MikeB says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
“The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers…. This doesn’t seem right to me.”
It would probably be less confusion if it read:
The satellite datasets are based on measurements calibrated against platinum resistance thermometers.

Beta Blocker

Monckton of Brenchley:
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Was least-squares linear regression used to calculate the two CET trends?

Neil says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:16 am
> There’s still an el-Nino forming?
New weather/climate aphorism: Cold PDO – El Niño won’t show.

SteveT

Charlie says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
‘….the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.’
It can’t stand at 17 years 10 months for two months in a row! We can’t howl about scientific sloppiness if we do the same…..
*******************************************************************************************
Sure it can, If you imagine the months being counted backwards and calculating any warming from the end of the current month backwards as far as it takes to get no warming.
All it means is that the latest month being added replaces the previous earliest month in the series because to keep the earlier month to give 17yrs 11 months would result in a warming result.
Hope that’s clear
SteveT

SteveT

Sorry Mark in Toledo at 0.00am, you beat me to it and explained it better. I’d forgotten how long since I last refreshed.
SteveT

SteveT

OOps 9.00am
SteveT

For the latest updated cooling forecast based on the natural quasi -periodicities in solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here is a summary of the conclusions.
“I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
3.2.2. Observations.
a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
During the last year Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then .This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months , and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase .The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
“There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United states. Indeed as I write this in Houston on July 29th 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,”

Jim Clarke

“R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
Near 100%! Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, all else being equal, should produce some warming, just nowhere near what the IPCC says it should. Nonetheless, if the CO2 content increases and there is no warming, something must be offsetting that warming. I would say that it is 100% natural cooling, but there is a slight chance that we humans are doing something else (land use changes, aerosols, con trails, etc.) that is cancelling some of the warming.
But, like Leonard Weinstein said, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the CAGW Theory of climate change is proven wrong by these observations, no matter what reason or excuse is given for the lack of warming.

H Grouse

I like the de Vries Cycle for near term predictions. Cooling for the next 80+ years – modulated by the AMO and PDO.

richardscourtney

Lance Wallace:
In your post at August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am you say

And if the process is chaotic, a linear regression tells us nothing about what will happen in the future.

The discussion is about the recent past. Only you has mentioned the future.
So, your point is?
Richard

Jim Clarke says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the Earth climate. Solar + ocean cycles explains it all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/solar-amo-pdo-cycles-combined-reproduce-the-global-climate-of-the-past/
The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.
The article gives a slight nod to CO2. I give none.

M Courtney

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

Exactly.
It doesn’t matter how technical you sound when you express an opinion.
It doesn’t matter how authoritative the position is from which you express an opinion.
It doesn’t matter if you express your opinion in Latin, Sanskrit, Computer Code or Interpretive Dance.
If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And your opinion can be disregarded.

John Finn

While the surface and atmospheric trends are interesting they don’t tell the whole story. In fact they don’t even tell 10% of the story. Sorry to be boring but earth’s climate system is still gaining energy. The oceans are accumulating energy at the rate of ~7×10^22 Joules per decade. The earth is still warming.
That aside some of the comparisons in the above post are ridiculous, e.g CET and global trends.

milodonharlani

Dr Norman Page says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am
If the Holocene lasts as long as the Eemian (the MIS 5 interglacial), it has about 5000 more years to run. If as long as the Holsteinian (name in Northern Europe for the MIS 11 interglacial), then a lot more time than that is left for balmy conditions. The Holocene has already endured for longer than the intervening, relatively weak interglacials of MIS 9 & 7.
MIS 11 is generally considered the best orbital mechanical (which factors control insolation) analogue for the Holocene. It lasted long enough & was sufficiently warmer than the Holocene for the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet largely to melt thanks to natural global warming. This dome only partially melted during the Eemian, also warmer than & longer lasting than the Holocene so far.
This excellent 2011 study of German lake sediments shows the similarities in short time scale climatic variations between the MIS 11 & Holocene interglacials, which fluctuations correlate well with solar cycles. So no need to posit volcanic triggers or any other explanation for decadal to centennial scale warmer & cooler periods in the Holocene. The best supported hypothesis remains the sun. For still shorter time scales, the lake observations record ENSO & NAO variations.:
Sub-decadal- to decadal-scale climate cyclicity during the Holsteinian interglacial (MIS 11) evidenced in annually laminated sediments
Abstract.
To unravel the short-term climate variability during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11, which represents a close analogue to the Holocene with regard to orbital boundary conditions, we performed microfacies and time series analyses on a 3200-yr-long record of annually laminated
Holsteinian lake sediments from Dethlingen, northern Germany.
These biogenic varves comprise two sub-layers: a light sub-layer, which is controlled by spring/summer diatom blooms, and a dark sub-layer consisting mainly of amorphous
organic matter and fragmented diatom frustules deposited during autumn/winter. Time series analyses were performed on the thickness of the light and dark sub-layers. Signals exceeding the 95% and 99% confidence levels occur at periods that are near-identical to those known from modern instrumental data and Holocene palaeoclimatic records.
Spectral peaks at periods of 90, 25, and 10.5 yr are likely associated with the 88-, 22- and 11-yr solar cycles, respectively. This variability is mainly expressed in the light sublayer spectra, suggesting solar influence on the palaeoproductivity of the lake. Significant signals at periods between 3 and 5 yr and at 6 yr are strongest expressed in the dark sub-layer spectra and may reflect an influence of the El Ni˜no-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation
(NAO) during autumn/winter.
Our results suggest that solar forcing and ENSO/NAO-like variability influenced central European climate during MIS 11 similarly to the present interglacial, thus demonstrating the comparability of the two interglacial periods at sub-decadal to decadal timescales.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clim-past.net%2F7%2F987%2F2011%2Fcp-7-987-2011.pdf&ei=CRjdU_bVL8vliwLw44DgBQ&usg=AFQjCNELzOCYxtgqsBdpmsFwfy5-7RojJw&sig2=uU2G8WVo65lp0P25bhIF3Q&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGE

PMHinSC

R. Shearer says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”
urederra says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:21 am
Nobody knows.
Jim Clarke says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:54 am
Near 100%!
My answer is: Near 0%
It find it almost statistically possible for a natural phenomena to cancel an anthropogenic effect for over 17 years. Were it not for the cliché “a monkey hitting keys at random for an infinite amount of time will create a complete works of William Shakespeare” I would drop the “near.”
So, the answer to your question is “nobody knows”, “100%,” or “0%.”
Is there anything else we can help you with?

H Grouse

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
” earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”

Evidence of this can be found in the thermal expansion component of sea level rise.

highflight56433

Dr Norman Page says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:51 am …”As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, finally the snow cover never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop as suggested by Steve Goddard,””
If snow cover never melts, glaciation is faster than as stated “a few thousands years.” Example: New glaciers on Mt. St Helens since 1980.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/st_helens/st_helens_geo_hist_104.html

milodonharlani

John Finn says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
Sea level rise has slowed. Sea ice extent is growing. The “data” on ocean heat content are only slightly less reliable than the “adjusted” surface temperature record.
But the important point is that the predictions of GCM models have been falsified, so are worse than worthless for purposes of advising public policy.

milodonharlani

PMHinSC says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:30 am
Natural (& possibly man-made) cooling more than cancels out whatever small warming effect might occur from man-made GHGs. The earth is presently cooling, which corrupt “adjustments” to valid surface observations can no longer hide, thanks to the vigilance of satellites.

John Finn says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/#comment-1699977
Henry says
there is no global warming whatsoever
it is only cooling
I threw the dice three times
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
and three times it comes up global cooling
[you can do any test of for the significance for those correlation coefficients and it will show a pass]
However, this [global cooling] will cause some major problems
Any ideas what those problems might be, John?

bit chilly

john finn,can you point me to literature on the instruments measuring this oceanic energy increase ,specifically the chapter on their accuracy.

Milodonharlani
I agree with you that it is important to know where earth stands relative to the 100,000- 20,000 year Milankovitch orbital ice age cycles which are then modulated by the solar activity quasiperiodicities .here’s what the link at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
says about the former:
“The information in Fig 4 is essential for forecasting climate over future periods of several thousand years and longer.The green eccentricity curves in Fig 4 show that Marine Isotope Stage 11 (424-374,000 years ago) and MIS 19 ( 788-775,000 ) were the Milankovitch cycles most closely analogous to the present day. The 400,000 +/- year periodicities seen by inspecting the same curve are very stable and have been recognized in the Geological Record as far back as 400 million years. It would appear from a glance at Fig.4 that such forecasting would be straightforward but this is not so. In climate forecasting other things in the system as a whole are never equal with the result that, as reported in the Wiki article, opinions differ e.g.:
“An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.[23]
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.
As a further example Rohling et al 2010 say:
” Recent comparisons pf CO2 and CH4 trends throughMIS-19 with those of the Holocene, in the absence of sea level constraints, have been used to suggest that the Holocene should have terminated already .Kutzbach et al 2009.
and Tzedakis et al 2012 discus various mechanisms and timings
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html
they say:
“Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv.”
The relative Antarctic temperatures at the Vostock site over the last four glacials and interglacials preceding our Holocene warming peak are shown in dark green in Fig 4.
It is of interest to note that Northern Canadian temperatures during the Eemian interglacial (130,000-115,000 years ago) are estimated to be 5 degrees C higher than today and global sea levels were about 5 meters higher than at present. During the Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial Greenland temperatures were about 8 degrees C warmer than today and global sea levels have been variously estimated from 8-20 meters above present day. A final point of interest is the rapid temperature rise which terminates all the glacial periods. The reasons for this rapid warming remain the subject of active investigation. as is the relative length of the interglacial periods. The repeated episodes of rapid warming during the Pleistocene indicate that climate response to the natural drivers is non – linear and some combination of resonances between drivers results in passing a threshold beyond which a period of positive feedback produces rapid change.
Of interest in this regard is the current declining trend in the earths obliquity
Wiki says
“Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling “

justaskin

I tire of these graphs that only go back 15-20 years and say, “Look at the ‘Great Pause’!” If one looks at the global (not specific locations, like Central England) temperature record back to 1850, you will see several other “great pauses.” http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
So is there something special about the current pause? Is there evidence that we’ve entered some new kind of climate regime, pumping more heat into the oceans than into the air (which would not be a particularly good thing)?

Beta Blocker

Monckton of Brenchley:
” …. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. …”
===========================================
H Grouse:
Monckton’s cherry.
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

“>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
UAH-only versions of Figures 1, 2, and 3 covering the same timeframes would be very useful for comparison purposes.

. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.
As Steven Mcintyre and I both document. The climate gate mails are not about giss or hadcru or ncdc.
Your mistaken impression contributed to Jones getting off
Scott free. Rather than investigating the proxy papers
The investigations misdirected attention to temperature records. Skeptics didn’t help matters by saying the mails
Were about giss and hadcru.
At one point I was contacted by high profile Washington dc
Skeptics demanding that I find some way to attack
Noaa with the mails.
The mails were about proxies. Ar4 chapter 6. Gatekeepers.
And fighting for a. Not about giss. Not about hadcru.
And in case you want to bring up harryreadme??? That’s about a dataset not used in climate studies
[“And fighting for a.” ?? Typo? .mod]

H Grouse

Beta Blocker says:
August 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
“very useful for comparison purposes.”
This is a rough comparison
.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend