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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
449 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 5, 2014 9:35 am

dp says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:37 am
The question of how this isn’t cherry picking is yet artfully unanswered.
This is cherry picking to get a slope of 0 for 70 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1930/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1930/trend

dp
August 5, 2014 9:59 am

If the plot had been done using today’s method in 1930 instead of 2014 it apparently would not have been considered cherry picking.

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 10:51 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am
Your ignorance is astounding. You obviously never read Lamb’s seminal book. Here are his data:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stgeorge/geog5426/Lamb%20Palaeogeography%20Palaeoclimatology%20Palaeoecology%201965.pdf
96 AD 800-1000
97- 98 1000-1100
98-100 1100-1150
100-106 1150-1200
100-104 1200-1250
100-106 1250-1300
98-101 1300-1350
97- 98 1350-1400
95 1400-1450
95 1450-1500
97 1500-1550
93- 94 1550-1600
93- 94 1600-1650
92- 93 1650-1700 a
96- 97 1700-1750 a
94 1750-1800
96 1800-1850
97 1850-1900
99 1900-1950
Even you should be able to detect the difference in average temperatures during the MWP (c. AD 800 to 1400) from the LIA (c. 1400 to 1850).

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 10:55 am

Oops. I accidentally posted rainfall rather than T. The last number in this series is the annual average T in degrees C (others are seasonal). Interesting that the MWP & LIA show up in precipitation data, too, though:
800-1000 3.5 3.5 15.9 15.9 9.2
1000-1 I00 3.7 3.7 (16.2) 16.2 9.4
1100-1150 3.5 3.5 (16.2) 16.5 9.6
1150-1200 3.9 4.2 (16.3) 16.7 10.2
1200-1250 3.8 4.1 (16.3) 16.7 10.1
1250-1300 3.9 4.2 (16.3) 16.7 10.2
1300-1350 3.6 3.8 15.9 16.2 9.8
1350-1400 3.6 3.8 15.7 15.9 9.5
1400-1450 3.4 3.4 15.8 15.8 9.1
1450-1500 3.5 3.5 15.6 15.6 9.0
1500-1550~ 3.8 3.8 15.9 15.9 9.3
1550-1600 3.2 3.2 (15.3) 15.3 8.8
1600-1650 3.2 3.2 (15.4) 15.4 8.8
1650-1700 a 3.1 3.1 (15.3) 15.3 8.7
1700-17508 3.7 3.7 15.9 15.9 9.24
1750-1800 3.4 3.4 15.9 15.9 9.06
1800-1850 3.5 3.5 15.6 15.6 9.12
1850-1900 3.8 3.8 15.7 15.7 9.12
1900-1950 4.2 4.2 15.8 15.8 9.41

August 5, 2014 11:08 am

John Finn says, August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am:
“Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.
(i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
(ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
(iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.
Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?”

(ii) Because of a preponderance towards the end of the period of La Niña conditions in the Pacific.
Other than that, you forgot the one mechanism that is probably more important than any other (maybe with the exception of just changing cloud cover):
(iv) Reduced winds over the tropical ocean slows mean evaporation rates.
This is what in fact happened in 1976/77 when SOI all of a sudden dropped from a relatively high mean level to a relatively low mean level and stayed there for the next 30 odd years.
A so-called ‘enhanced GHE’ could, as Bob Boder points out, not cause an increase in OHC without the troposphere and then the surface warming first to impede the solar heat in its escape from down there.

August 5, 2014 11:34 am

dp says:
August 5, 2014 at 9:59 am
If the plot had been done using today’s method in 1930 instead of 2014 it apparently would not have been considered cherry picking.
True, for the simple reason that you do not pick the final point. If you end with the latest month, then the final month is picked for you automatically.

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 12:28 pm

John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am
Do you really not see the MWP & LIA in these 50-year averages in the reconstructed CET data:
MWP (AD 800-1400): 9.2 to 10.2 degrees C
LIA (AD 1400-1850): 8.7 to 9.24
The difference is even more stark, without overlap, by comparing the core 150 years of each period, ie mean of 10.2 C for 1150-1300 with 8.8 C for 1550-1700. Please explain why Lamb saw the MWP & LIA in Manley’s data, but you can’t. Thanks.

August 5, 2014 1:01 pm

Made a funny graphic using the “no warming” graph above.
http://wp.me/a2mLV6-6q4

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 1:51 pm

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) says:
August 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Funny. IPCC = CCPP.

richardscourtney
August 5, 2014 2:21 pm

John Finn:
I began my post at August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am by saying

I am replying to your astonishingly stupid post at August 4, 2014 at 5:13 am.

That was merely an accurate statement because your amazingly daft post had for the fourth time asserted the falsehood that global warming is other than an increase to global average surface temperature (GASTA) despite the truth having been explained to you each time.
But you compounded your stupidity at August 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm by replying

I am now replying to you ignorant and ill-informed at August 4, 2014 at 5:27 am. I shall try to be patient, Richard, since it’s my experience that those who resort to labelling others as stupid generally suffer from a lack of understanding of the issues involved.

John Finn, the only “lack of understanding” is your daft claim that you have a right to unilaterally change the definition of global warming. And it is a mild description to say someone is “stupid” when that person is so daft as to refuse to see his error when repeatedly told he has no right to impose such a redefinition.
Furthermore, at August 5, 2014 at 6:51 am you wrote to Milodonharlani saying

You really don’ have a clue do you?

because Milodonharlani had provided data which showed you were plain wrong.
Clearly, according to you such a reply generally suggests you “suffer from a lack of understanding of the issues involved”.
John Finn, your behaviour is despicable and when called on it you falsely accuse others of it. In summation, you are an especially egregious troll.
Richard

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 2:45 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm
The first IPCC even included a graph based upon Lamb’s analysis of the MWP & LIA, showing the ~1.5 K difference between the warm peak & cold trough on a 50-year basis.

John Finn
August 5, 2014 2:50 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:55 am

Right, now can you do the following:
Read exactly what it says beneath the table of temperatures you posted. In particular note the first line which says. “Temperatures from 1680 are taken from MANLEY’S (1958, 1961) homogenized records”.
MANLEY’S (1958, 1961) homogenized records formed the original CET record
The next statement says Temperatures before 1680 averages derived from decade values of the winter mildness/severity index and the summer wetness/dryness index (p.20)”
It is the post-1680 temperatures ONLY which are taken from the CET record.
Ok now let’s look at the figures for the CET annual data (from your post)
1650-1700 8.7
1700-1750 9.24
1750-1800 9.06
1800-1850 9.12
1850-1900 9.12
1900-1950 9.41
Could you now answer the following questions
1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?
2. I claimed the 19th century trend was flat. Lamb gives annual mean temperatures for the periods 1800-1850 and 1850-1900. They are exactly the same, i.e. 9.12 degrees Am I right or am I wrong?
3. From the data it is possible to estimate mean annual temperatures for 1700-1800 and for 1800-1900. For 1800-1900 it is (trivially) 9.12 degrees. For 1700-1800 it is ~9.15 degrees. In other words the trend for entire 18th and 19th century is negligible.
My calculations agree with Lamb’s figures.

John Finn
August 5, 2014 2:58 pm

because Milodonharlani had provided data which showed you were plain wrong.

Read my response to Milodonharlani and answer the same questions.
Just to refresh your memory. I claimed that CE temperature trends for the 18th and 19th centuries were essentially flat. Now run along and use Hubert Lamb’s data to debunk my claim.

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 2:59 pm

What difference does it make that Manley made the reconstruction? I said Lamb’s analysis of the reconstructed data showed clearly that there was both the MWP & the LIA. Nothing you have spewed changes that fact.
It doesn’t matter what average you compute for the 18th & 19th centuries. The LIA’s trough was in the 17th century. The early 18th had a brief counter-trend rally off the low of the 1690s.
How many more times are you going to keep ignoring the inconvenient truth that average T in the LIA (c. 1400 to 1850) was lower than both the MWP (c. 800 to 1400) & the (less warm to date) Modern Warming Period, as I’ve repeatedly shown, & that this is especially true for the 150 years of peak MWP & trough LIA?
Luckily your unfounded, biased opinion doesn’t matter. Lamb & Manley’s do.

richardscourtney
August 5, 2014 2:59 pm

John Finn:
Your post at August 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm addressed to milodonharlani poses a series of questions.
Please explain the relevance of any of your questions to the subject of this thread which is that global warming has stopped and according to RSS it stopped nearly 18 years ago.
Richard

John Finn
August 5, 2014 3:03 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm
What difference does it make that Manley made the reconstruction? I said Lamb’s analysis of the reconstructed data showed clearly that there was both the MWP & the LIA. Nothing you have spewed changes that fact.

How did Lamb determine MWP temperatures?
How were the CET temperatures in the 17th century “trough” measured?

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 3:03 pm

John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Your averages for the 18th & 19th century cannot be used to show that the MWP & LIA didn’t exist, fool.
The MWP was roughly AD 800-1400. The LIA was c. 1400 to 1850. Looking at a century average for the end of the LIA & start of the Modern Warm Period is meaningless, indeed worse than worthless.
As I told you at the very beginning, look at a climatically significant resolution, ie in 30 or 60 year increments, starting from AD 1000 or earlier. Or at least include the whole of the LIA, with its trough in the 17th century. Just how obtuse are you willing to be?

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 3:08 pm

John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Had you bothered to read the link I provided, you’d know. Amazing that you presume to comment on the LIA & MWP without having read Lamb, 1965, & his subsequent work.
He used Manley’s work extending the CET series back from 1660 to 800, as you should know, since you mentioned Manley. But even just in the instrumental data from 1660 the Maunder Minimum trough of the LIA shows up clearly, as does the rapid rebound in the early 18th century, a faster, higher rise than the recent warming decades, which of course have been “adjusted” upwards & prior decades downwards. CET also captures the Dalton Minimum.
As I said before, you’re a hopeless case, impossible to educate.

John Finn
August 5, 2014 3:16 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm
John Finn:
Your post at August 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm addressed to milodonharlani poses a series of questions.
Please explain the relevance of any of your questions to the subject of this thread which is that global warming has stopped and according to RSS it stopped nearly 18 years ago.

Because, Richard, many, many comments back the author of this post (CM) cited the CET record to support his point. He justified this by stating that the CET was a good proxy for the NH as a whole. I pointed out that according to the CET record there was very little long term change in temperatures between 1700 and 1900. Basically CE temperatures in the early 18th century were pretty much the same as in the early 20th century.
In other words there was no obvious LIA recovery between 1700 and 1900 in the CET record and so, by proxy, no LIA recovery in the NH. I also pointed out that pre-1700 temperature readings were highly dubious.
Lamb’s CET data shows I was correct about the 1700-1900 trend. Other publications support the unreliability of pre-1700 readings.

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 3:23 pm

1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?
I have done this ad nauseum. It ended in the mid-19th century, among other reasons, because that’s when the T trend turned upward to stay. The warming in the late 19th century was followed after a cool interval by another warming in the early 20th century & by a third in the late 20th, again after a cooling interval. The warm rebound of the early 18th century was not followed by another upswing but a downswing.
2. I claimed the 19th century trend was flat. Lamb gives annual mean temperatures for the periods 1800-1850 and 1850-1900. They are exactly the same, i.e. 9.12 degrees Am I right or am I wrong?
3. From the data it is possible to estimate mean annual temperatures for 1700-1800 and for 1800-1900. For 1800-1900 it is (trivially) 9.12 degrees. For 1700-1800 it is ~9.15 degrees. In other words the trend for entire 18th and 19th century is negligible.
The 20th century average isn’t much warmer than the 19th. The Holocene since about 5000 years ago has been stable, with fluctuations of only a few degrees at most, but the long term trend is down.
The LIA is visible in the 17th century & other troughs. The MWP is visible in its main & lesser peaks. As I’ve repeatedly showed you, the 18th & 19th century averages mask swings diagnostic of the end of the LIA & start of the Modern Warm Period.
The proxy data are plenty reliable enough to demonstrate both the MWP peak & LIA trough, not just in the North Atlantic region, but globally.

sturgishooper
August 5, 2014 3:30 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Time to ignore this troll and move on. I sometimes wonder if the trolls on this blog are all the same loon. My opinion of humanity would be lower if I were convinced that there could really be so many ignoramuses infesting a single blog, no matter how popular.

John Finn
August 5, 2014 3:57 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm
1. When did the LIA end – give reasons?
I have done this ad nauseum. It ended in the mid-19th century, among other ….

So it ended in the mid 19th century, did it? From Lamb’s figures we have
1800-1850 mean temps = 9.12 degrees
1850-1900 mean temps = 9.12 degrees
What indication is there that the LIA ended in the mid 19th century? The temperatures in the first half of the 19th century are EXACTLY the same as in the second half of the 19th century.
Do explain what it is you see that indicates the end of the LIA? Can you help him, Richard? What about you, sturgishooper? Anyone??

milodonharlani
August 5, 2014 4:10 pm

John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I already told you one reason why the LIA ended in the mid-19th century. Why should I keep instructing you when you refuse to learn?
But I’ll repeat. Global T appears to have gained in the early 19th century coming out of the Dalton Minimum, as it did in the early 18th century coming out of the Maunder Minimum. Look at the decadal average Ts in the CET, for instance, as I’ve repeatedly asked you to do. Then in the late 19th century for the first time since the Medieval Warm Period, a warming interval was followed after a cooling period by yet another warming interval in the early 20th century. This centennial scale trend reversal was confirmed in the late 20th century by another warming interval.
The world has not made a new low since the 1690s trough of the LIA but has now made higher highs (in the official “data”) or at least close to them (in probable reality) in three successive peaks, ie the late 19th, early 20th & late 20th century decadal-scale warm intervals.
I suggest you read Lamb, 1965, further to educate yourself. Here endeth the lesson.

sturgishooper
August 5, 2014 4:20 pm

Warming in NE Asian waters during the long Minoan, long Roman, short Sui-Tang & long Medieval Warm Periods was greater than now. The Sui-Tang occurred during the Dark Ages Cold Period. Like the rapid rise in temperature in the early 1700s following the Maunder Minimum cold, it was a fairly brief return to warmth from the Dark Ages low point, but before the onset of the Medieval Warm Period.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/another-broken-hockey-stick-new-paper.html
Another broken hockey stick: New paper finds ocean temps were warmer during multiple periods over past 2700 years & current warming within natural variability
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that sea surface temperatures [SSTs] in the Southern Okinawa Trough off the coast of China were warmer than the present during the Minoan Warm Period 2700 years ago, the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period 1400 years ago. According to the authors, “Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean [sea surface temperature] in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years.” In addition, the paper shows the rate of warming in the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Sui-Tang dynasty warm periods was much faster than in the current warming period since the Little Ice Age. The paper finds “A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation,” which corroborates other papers demonstrating that the climate is highly sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity. The paper adds to the peer-reviewed publications of over a thousand scientists showing that the current warm period is well within the range of natural variability and is not unprecedented, not accelerated, and not unusual in any respect.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052749/abstract

sturgishooper
August 5, 2014 4:24 pm

Re middle of 1800s LIA end, please read the abstract from the above-cited 2012 paper (one of the many finding the same):
Sea surface temperature variability in southern Okinawa Trough during last 2700 years
Weichao Wu1,
Wenbing Tan1,
Liping Zhou1,2,
Huan Yang3 and
Yunping Xu1,2,*
Most of the temperature reconstructions for the past two millennia are based on proxy data from various sites on land. Here we present a bidecadal resolution record of sea surface temperature (SST) in Southern Okinawa Trough for the past ca. 2700 years by analyzing tetraether lipids of planktonic archaea in the ODP Hole 1202B, a site under the strong influence of Kuroshio Current and East Asian monsoon. The reconstructed SST anomalies generally coincided with previously reported late Holocene climate events, including the Roman Warm Period, Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Current Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period and Little Ice Age. However, the Medieval Warm Period usually thought to be a historical analogue for the Current Warm Period has a mean SST of 0.6–0.8°C lower than that of the Roman Warm Period and Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period. Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean SST in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years. A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation.