Another excuse for 'the pause' – it's a 'blip' from volcanoes, or something

From the University of Edinburgh:

Warming slow-down not the end of climate change, study shows

A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending, but a natural blip in an otherwise long-term upwards trend, research shows.

In a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.

The findings support the likelihood that a current hiatus in the world’s year-on-year temperature increases – which have stalled since 1998 – is temporary.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh analysed real-world historic climate records from 1782 to 2000, comparing them with computerised climate models for the same timescale.

They were able to separate the influence on climate trends of man-made warming – such as from greenhouse gas emissions – and of natural influences in temperature – such as periods of intense sunlight or volcanic activity.

This showed that random variations can cause short term interruptions to climate patterns in the form of a pause or surge in warming, in both the real data and in the models, typically lasting up to a decade. Extreme natural forces, such as strong volcanic eruptions, were shown to disrupt climate trends for decades.

The research highlights the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate, when particles produced can reflect sunlight from Earth, causing long-lasting cooling. The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 was among the biggest in recent times, causing a so-called year without summer. Scientists estimate that, if it occurred today, it would cause a 20-year climate hiatus.

Their study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was supported by the European Commission.

Dr Andrew Schurer, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who led the research, said: “Human activity is causing the word to warm, and natural variability can cause this trend to slow down or speed up. Our study backs scientific understanding that climate change can experience periods of hiatus, but the overall trend is towards a warmer planet.”


This has to qualify as one of the worst press releases we’ve ever seen via Eurekalert.  The don’t give the name of the paper, the DOI, or any links to it. We are required to look it up, because, you know, these people are just too busy saving the world to stoop to such serf-like tasks.

Determining the likelihood of pauses and surges in global warming

Andrew P. Schurer, Gabriele C. Hegerl and Stephen P. Obrochta


The recent warming “hiatus” is subject to intense interest, with proposed causes including natural forcing and internal variability. Here we derive samples of all natural and internal variability from observations and a recent proxy reconstruction to investigate the likelihood that these two sources of variability could produce a hiatus or rapid warming in surface temperature. The likelihood is found to be consistent with that calculated previously for models and exhibits a similar spatial pattern, with an Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation-like structure, although with more signal in the Atlantic than in model patterns. The number and length of events increases if natural forcing is also considered, particularly in the models. From the reconstruction it can be seen that large eruptions, such as Mount Tambora in 1815, or clusters of eruptions, may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results.

Key Points

  • The recent hiatus is not unusual in the context of the last 230 years
  • Models agree with observations regarding likelihood and pattern of events
  • Likelihood increases if natural forcings (e.g., volcanic) are also considered

Figures as they were provided in the preview, no captions given.


I’d tend to believe them more if they could actually show a Tambora style eruption that has occurred in the last 15-20 years, and also explain why the effect of Pinatubo was so short lived if in fact volcanoes are affecting global climate as they say.

I think Willis does a far better job of explaining it here:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 20, 2015 4:42 pm
As one can see the volcanic aerosol index since year 2000 is close to zero.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 20, 2015 4:54 pm

Well, I suppose that the paper might make reference to Dark Gasses or Frigidaire Gasses. But the abstract suggests that a 20 year depression in things would originate with the noted eruptions in your graph. Though if this is so then it’s an open question whether there’s legitimacy to it of itself, or just can-kicking to save a failing hypothesis.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 20, 2015 6:30 pm

Oh, ye of little faith!
You have to just believe.
“Facts are useless in emergencies!”
-D. Byrne

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 20, 2015 6:33 pm

“Facts lost
Facts are never what they seem to be
Nothing there!
No information left of any kind
Lifting my head
Looking for danger signs
There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us
There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
The feeling returns
Whenever we close out eyes
Lifting my head
Looking around inside
The island of doubt
It’s like the taste of medicine
Working by hindsight
Got the message from the oxygen
Making a list
Find the cost of opportunity
Doing it right
Facts are useful in emergencies
The feeling returns
Whenever we close out eyes
Lifting my head
Looking around inside.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don’t do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don’t stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…
I’m still waiting… I’m still waiting…”

tom s
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 21, 2015 6:33 am

Stop showing actual observed data! This does not agree with the models!

July 20, 2015 4:49 pm

So if this is an excuse for ‘the pause’, what would be the real reason?
In addition, at least from skimming through the article, I don’t see them claiming recent volcanic activity to have caused a hiatus. They actually state in their discussion/conclusion that volcanic activity has been relatively weak recently.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Aran
July 21, 2015 10:01 am

Aran. You are on target. This is just throwing mud on the wall to see if it will stick and be seen as the reason for he nearly 20 year pause. Of course, the mud won’t stick. But the press release can be cited between now and the Paris meeting. Expect a great number of explanations, denials, and excuses for the pause between now and the Paris meeting.

July 20, 2015 4:50 pm

“They were able to separate the influence on climate trends of man-made warming – such as from greenhouse gas emissions – and of natural influences in temperature – such as periods of intense sunlight or volcanic activity.” It would be interesting to see how they accomplished this. All in all it seems to be just another denial of facts to match their biases.

Reply to  markl
July 21, 2015 11:24 am

I expect they did a multi-variable regression, got some numbers, and proclaimed them “truth”.

July 20, 2015 4:55 pm

Uh… Yeah… Volcanoes… that’s it… Volcanoes… Yes…

Pat Frank
July 20, 2015 4:58 pm

How is this paper any different from Matthew England’s tendentious study (WUWT post here proving that the models that have a physically meaningless projection flat spot between 2000 and 2010 still produce a physically meaningless warming story.
My comment there is applicable here as well. It’s all just-so much ado stories conveying nothing.

July 20, 2015 4:58 pm

Models agree with observations regarding likelihood and pattern of events
Who’s models?

July 20, 2015 4:58 pm

I see that even hypothetical major volcanoes are now explaining the pause. If we had a Krakatoa, there would be a long period without warning. So the models are all good.
I read the other day that the U.S. alone spent $79bn cumulatively on AGW research. And got nothing – literally nothing back for that money. The same stories that were plausible in 1988 regurgitated in the face of overwhelming disproof.

Reply to  Andrew
July 20, 2015 5:40 pm

Aren’t modeled volcanoes more powerful than real ones?

Reply to  MarkW
July 21, 2015 12:55 pm

Yes, definitely. In the same way that in Flight of the Conchords, Bret’s imaginary wife is one of the most beautiful wives:

Reply to  MarkW
July 21, 2015 12:57 pm

, depending on what scheme fits the meme,

Karl Compton
Reply to  MarkW
July 21, 2015 2:45 pm

Not more powerful, but there are just so danged MANY of them at Science Fairs!

July 20, 2015 5:02 pm

Well, at least they admit that there is natural variability in temperature. That’s a start.
It still kills me that they claim to know that humans are warming the planet when they have been forced to admit that they don’t understand what causes natural variability in the Earth’s temperature.

Non Nomen
July 20, 2015 5:04 pm

Our study backs scientific understanding that climate change can experience periods of hiatus,

oi oi oi, danger zone, stop that nonsense

but the overall trend is towards a warmer planet.

good boy, sinecure confirmed!

July 20, 2015 5:04 pm

Ah yes, Volcanic Blip. I’m sure we covered that in Geology 101, but I must have been away sick that day.

Margaret Smith
July 20, 2015 5:05 pm

” a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation”
That would be the natural variation that was completely overwhelmed by CO2’s effect.
Also climate change can only be in one direction and it has ‘stopped’.
If the climate had actually stopped changing I would be getting genuinely scared.
This is real laugh out loud stuff.

July 20, 2015 5:06 pm

‘ may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results.’
Ignoring the use of that most definitive of terms ‘may’ (+/- maybe), it’s somewhat revealing that possible observations of what happened are backed up by what (some) of the play-station replays predict/project (prodict?) spit out in their game-over report.
Have we really reached those dizzy heights of hubristic, onanistic fantasy where observations are rubber-stamped as genuine only when the computer ‘says yes’?
It seems that way to me but, I’m sure, that ATTP, from the University of Edinburgh, will be along soon to tell us what we should be thinking!

Reply to  RoyFOMR
July 20, 2015 6:37 pm

Ah, good catch, I missed that. If it was consistent with model results, then the models already modeled it. But if they didn’t already model it, then the ‘blips’ cannot be consistent with the very thing the ‘blips’ claim is inconsistent.
But if the notion is that the models are inaccurate to reality, and that the ‘support’ is that the ‘blips’ move the models closer to reality, then all this means is that the models are inconsistent with reality. Not simply as a matter of the ‘science is settled’ but that this also stands as a refutation (given Del Prete’s charts above) of the newest ‘blip erasing’ data product from NASA/NOAA.
None of which gives the least credibility to the idea that the models are accurate in any useful measure.

Robert Ballard
Reply to  Jquip
July 21, 2015 9:56 am

The cake has been eaten. I wonder what’s for desert… I hope it’s cake!

July 20, 2015 5:07 pm

“results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.”
I agree that they were the result of natural variation but they were not short term.
The last two pauses were over 30 years . .
The period noted below had no net warming during the period
1880-1930 50 years
1940-1980 40 years
The current pause may run well into 1930/1940

July 20, 2015 5:11 pm

Correction on my last post, The last sentence should read .
The current pause may run well into 2030/2040

Reply to  herkimer
July 20, 2015 6:41 pm

Or it my precede a cooling trend that runs well into any date one might care to speculate on.
Only by admitting that such guess work is just that is it excusable to make such statements, IMO.
To imply that one somehow knows what will happen next is hubris.
To assert that such speculations and “analysis” is some sort of science is a not-funny-anymore joke.

July 20, 2015 5:17 pm

The likelihood is found to be consistent with that calculated previously for models and exhibits a similar spatial pattern,

Weasel words from Hell!!
Eating apple pie is consistent with heroin addiction and murder. The vast majority of 20th century American heroin addicts and murderers had, at some time, consumed apple pie.

Reply to  commieBob
July 20, 2015 6:57 pm

They forgot to toss in an ‘unprecedented’ as well.

Reply to  PiperPaul
July 20, 2015 8:07 pm

The temperature record since 1950 is entirely consistent with natural processes with no contribution from CO2 at all. No part of the record is unprecidented.

Bubba Cow
July 20, 2015 5:17 pm

“Determining the likelihood of pauses and surges in global warming”
any “surges”??

July 20, 2015 5:38 pm

What hiatus? I thought they just proved that there was no hiatus, the heat is hiding in ship board water intakes.
Can’t these guys get their stories straight?

Reply to  MarkW
July 20, 2015 6:31 pm

“Can’t these guys get their stories straight?”
Probably due to publication lag? The Hiatus Reasons pipeline was still actively churning, when the What Hiatus? paper was pulled out of the hat orifice.

Reply to  Paul
July 20, 2015 6:45 pm

Exactly. What were these people supposed to do after wasting all that time and money…just throw it in the trash heap where it belongs?
Hell, if “climate scientists” were wont to do such things, where would that leave us?
And how to apply for that next grant if one does not get published results fro the last one?

John Smith
Reply to  MarkW
July 20, 2015 6:32 pm

(I live right next to a major science University, saw a guy at a stop light holding a cardboard sign that said this)
climate scientist …
will remove
or explain hiatus
for food

Reply to  John Smith
July 21, 2015 4:16 am


Leonard Lane
Reply to  John Smith
July 21, 2015 10:10 am

Now that is funny. On a sadder note, there was a similar sigh held by a man, and it said “Ned money for alcohol research”.

July 20, 2015 5:41 pm

So does this mean they don’t accept Tom Karl’s NOAA temperature reconstructions? After all, according to NOAA there is no pause.
Quite frankly, the reconstructions and repeated data torture of the warmistas to try to extract AGW out of some combination of altered data and computer-generated hallucinations is becoming tedious. I have to admit that over the past year or so I’ve begun to find the entire topic utterly boring.

Reply to  cgh
July 20, 2015 6:47 pm

It is quite tedious, and tiresome.
It would be boring, were it not for the very real money being spent, prices being raised, policies being implemented, and scientific credibility being squandered.

July 20, 2015 6:08 pm

But, I thought the hiatus had been erased! I’m befuddled!
Why do these eggheads focus on one component and try to explain the whole machine?
Have they considered that volcanic activity might be linked to solar or magnetic forcing?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
July 21, 2015 12:30 am

The narrative is breaking down.

July 20, 2015 6:19 pm

“Warming slow-down not the end of climate change…”
They can have their cake and eat it too. They said “not the end of climate change”. Who can argue with that?

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
July 20, 2015 6:33 pm

They don’t know for sure what is under all that fancy topping, though. It could be frozen cake.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
July 20, 2015 10:34 pm

They are a little bit trapped by their own deceit. The phrase ‘climate change’ was deliberately inflicted upon the populace as disinformation, and now it comes back to haunt.

July 20, 2015 6:21 pm

“Scientists from the University of Edinburgh analysed real-world historic climate records from 1782 to 2000, comparing them with computerised climate models for the same timescale.”
What is a “climate record?” Must be really, really good, cause they’re real-world and historic, too.
People like this should be required to provide their definition of “climate change” before they use it, as it seems to have no real meaning.

Reply to  Gamecock
July 20, 2015 9:54 pm

Heh, layering on ‘real world’ and ‘historic’ to ‘climate records’ sounds most like an attempt to convince themselves. Who, really, do they think they are fooling?

Reply to  kim
July 20, 2015 10:13 pm

Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a little bit of a tell. Dwelling, as they do, in computer simulations and manipulated temperature series, perhaps ‘climate records’ does need the further descriptive of ‘real world’ and ‘historic’ to help distinguish these records from the ones they’re most familiar with.
Well down the road to madness, these folks.

Reply to  Gamecock
July 20, 2015 11:23 pm

It’s the “comparing them with computerised climate models” that’s the killer. As if the models have any pretence of reality!

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Gamecock
July 21, 2015 1:44 am

Dr Andrew Schurer, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who led the research, said: “Human activity is causing the word to warm”

Which, by way of blaming warming on ‘man’ and cooling on natural processes, is a splendid definition of the logical fallacy: “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 21, 2015 10:17 am

Ever notice how the alarmists are careful to use the meaningless phrase “Climate change” in their titles and abstracts, but when their real passion (not science or understanding, of observations, etc. but passion for money and power) comes out it is global warming?

July 20, 2015 6:25 pm

Everything is natural variation, except the short warming trend between the late 1970’s and late 1990’s.
That was the start of a long term upward trend towards catastrophe.
The reduction in Arctic ice between 1980 or so and 2012 is proof of an inexorable decline which will culminate in the death of every polar bear and the drowning of every coastal city and island on the planet.
The increase in Antarctic ice during this period is meaningless noise and proof of nothing, as is that snap back in Arctic ice since 2012, as well as all of the previous fluctuations in Arctic ice extend and thickness tht has been documented over the past hundred and fifty years or more.
That is what one has to believe in order to accept CAGW.
I honestly cannot imagine how these people can keep a straight face while expounding on their ridiculous meme.
It is beyond belief.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 20, 2015 8:44 pm

Just today the scramble got more fun because , by measurement, the folks studying arctic Ice extent with the satellites from the European Space Agency found it to be “surprisingly” increasing for the last four years

Reply to  fossilsage
July 20, 2015 10:31 pm

Volume is the tell, as I’ve been saying. Now, if I could only remember why I was so sure that volume would be a leading indicator of recovery.

July 20, 2015 6:30 pm

It would be interesting if someone could determine the cause(s) of ice ages, volcanoes sure didn’t do it. It might help them determine the cause of ‘the pause’. It might also help them determine how much affect, if any, Man really has on the climate. If someone could do that, it might lend some credibility to what we now call climate science.

Reply to  SMC
July 20, 2015 6:49 pm

Imagine if the billions spent were used to study real things, or solve actual problems.
Unfortunately, imagining it is all we can do.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 20, 2015 10:16 pm

Agree, what a waste of human resources and $$$ or pounds when the government tricks educated people to work on global warming, rewarding only those who are devious enough to make up cr!@ in order to get more funding. We should be spending our limited resources on viable step out energies or paying down the debt. The US government is $20 + billion dollars every year for climate change and this is a typical product of that expenditure?
Originally they told us that natural variations were too weak to cause warming, now this epistle claims warming is overcome by natural events.
Any idiot that still links significant warming to CO 2 in the atmosphere ignores the total lack of 18 year linkage in the data.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 20, 2015 10:22 pm

Heh, for plausible worst case scenario, a la Judy’s latest post, I nominate the horrendous waste of money lost to catastrophism.
With lost opportunity costs compounding, we have already diminished the lives of our descendants. And wait ’til economic historians of the future lay the blame for present economic doldrums on the socio-political mania of catastrophism.
Not the least bit unlikely.

July 20, 2015 6:54 pm

“A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending…”
Uh, no….it’s a sign that climate change is continuing. Duh!

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Dirtman
July 21, 2015 1:57 am

+1 Good comment.

July 20, 2015 7:07 pm

So I’ve seen people on the web suggesting that smoke from fires is landing ash on the ice causing more melting. That smoke (like from volcanoes) will not lead to cooling I have never read

July 20, 2015 7:07 pm

So, the models that were said to be proven false if there was a ten…. err, no, 15…. uhm gulp… 17 year hiatus are now being used to prove that the 18 year hiatus is natural.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 20, 2015 11:16 pm

And you have to ask the obvious question, if the hiatus is natural, why wouldn’t any other trend period of similar length also be natural, whether warming, flat or cooling?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  ilma630
July 21, 2015 9:57 am

Ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!!

July 20, 2015 7:12 pm

“In a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.”
Oh, a DETAILED study! That’s different.
I wonder, did they study original data, or the highly massaged, manipulated, homogenized and “adjusted” data?
How exactly is anyone supposed to believe that in the year 2015, all we really needed to finally understand it all was one more “detailed study” from these whiz kids?
Stop calling me Shirley!

July 20, 2015 7:15 pm

‘…..not the end of climate change’, has anyone on this blog ever claimed that climate change is NOT changing or are these scientists trying to put into our mouths?

david smith
Reply to  Craig
July 21, 2015 8:50 am

They’re putting anything of theirs into my mouth…

david smith
Reply to  david smith
July 21, 2015 8:51 am

My word, Freudian predictive text slip:
They’re NOT putting anything of theirs into my mouth…

July 20, 2015 7:21 pm

I predict a consensus will settle on a possible hiatus long enough to cover the current generation of scientific management’s careers.

July 20, 2015 7:29 pm

Sorry, they did their analysis with old data. NOAA tells us that the record had to be modified because it had so many errors. Go back, start over.

July 20, 2015 7:29 pm

Jack Mayhoffer
July 20, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Uh… Yeah… Volcanoes… that’s it… Volcanoes… Yes…
Superb….Almost destroyed my laptop with tea but would have been worth it still..

July 20, 2015 7:29 pm

So Tambora , if it happened today, would cause a 15 – 20 year hiatus in warming.
Where was the Tambora-sized eruption around 18 years ago ?
I’m sure someone might have noticed it……….geologists perhaps, or people living near or surviving the eruption.

July 20, 2015 7:33 pm

That is one of several things about this fuzzy theory/hypothesis known as Climate Change that cause me to scratch my head. Natural climate variability can slow the warming of the climate, but it can not accelerate it. That HAS to be CO2. Why? Because the models say so. They can’t model the plateau at all, but they can model the upward trend badly. So the models must be right! I am so confused…

Reply to  Aussiebear
July 20, 2015 7:39 pm

No need to worry, unless and until all of the warmista shenanigans start to make perfect sense to you.
When that happens, be worried. Very worried.
The only cure is talking to people who know a bung hole from a barrel stave.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 20, 2015 8:05 pm

…. or buy some rubber sheets to put under your regular sheets, and try not to drink as much liquids as usual before retiring to your nocturnal anguish.

Reply to  Menicholas
July 20, 2015 10:27 pm

There are a few definitions for “bunghole”… Usually referring to a 55 gallon steel drum here in the U.S. Perhaps you are talking about an older, European definition? I would suppose that would be a wooden spirits barrel, with a wooden stave. As the stave is soaked in the spirit it expands, increasing its sealing capacity for long term storage and aging.
Is this knowledge a cure? If so, we need to let as many people know about its curative effect and publish it. ASAP.

Ted G
July 20, 2015 7:37 pm

Without the prove global warming is caused by Co2 Grant money, the warmist drooling dival would dry up to a trickle. Without Tax Money, Money, Money paying the bills. there would not be Climate conferences – Oh what a lovely world that would be!

July 20, 2015 7:44 pm

Not only are they using the models to prove that something can happen that they previously said would falsify the models if it did happen, they are now claiming that there is a natural cause for something that NOAA just proclaimed not to exist.
Can’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 20, 2015 9:59 pm

Are we at peak dissonance yet? Not even close.

July 20, 2015 7:48 pm

Schurer’s 2015 paper seems to be a speciic application of his 2013 paper (“The proxy reconstructions tend to show a smaller forced response than is simulated by the models. This discrepancy is shown, at least partly, to be likely associated with the difference in the response to large volcanic eruptions”) to the hiatus problem although it seem curious that the 2013 paper does not mention or predict the pause. I would be interested to see his response to the very credible analysis by Willis showing that (1) the response of the climate system to volcanism is short lived and (2) climate model responses to volcanism don’t match the data because the models are too tightly controlled by the CO2 sensitivity to be faithful to the damped oscillation response of nature to a pulse input ( I emailed the Willis 2013 analysis to Andrew Schurer hoping that the wuwt signature in the link will not prevent him from reading it.

July 20, 2015 8:03 pm

Forget the pause, for get the hiatus, it is the crawl. You see, climate change went drinking at a bar with a particular sign on the door. The sign says “Please don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor, our patrons burn their elbows and knees leaving”.

July 20, 2015 8:10 pm

So the much reported fires in the Pacific Northwest which are being blamed on global warming are sending particular matter into the air resulting in… By the way a strong El Nino likely means LOTS of rain for California. We are likely to hear about it as a tragic, unseasonable, flooding.

July 20, 2015 8:17 pm

“A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending, but a natural blip in an otherwise long-term upwards trend, research shows.”
Actually, a true statement. Even I know the earth has been warming for 300 years since the unwinding of the LIA; this is without having to do any paid research. All natural variability within climate cycles.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  kokoda
July 21, 2015 2:14 am


Even I know the earth has been warming for 300 years since the unwinding of the LIA

Quite right. Who’s to say that the real status quo wasn’t actually the MWP? And that after the intervening disruptions of the LIA etc, we are not now returning to that balmy climate that was so good for the world back then? But, we need a name for it, an identifier, rather like the MWP….

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 21, 2015 10:05 am

Hmmm, how about “Post-Victorian Climate Recovery” (PVCR)? One too many terms to be really snappy, I suppose, but that’s my shot.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 20, 2015 8:50 pm

What gets me is the simplistic and child-like equivocation of “climate change” and “upward temperature movement”. The remark “A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending”. Well D’UH. For some unknown reason, they seem to thing that SOMEBODY thinks climate change is at an end…so they must assert…”but it isn’t!” And so the story mumbles on, after studying 200 years of temperature data. 200 years. A record so tainted that “studying” it is all but pointless. And so tainted that the best they can come up with is that Climate Change hasn’t ended. Aw, gee. My old curmudgeon scientist inside cries foul. These people have nothing to do, except troll for grants from a prebiased authority.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 21, 2015 6:03 am

Reminds me of the following pearl of wisdom:
Die Wissenschaft hat festgestellt
dass der Arsch die Beine haelt.
Die Beine, die sind so gestellt
dass der Arsch nicht runterfaellt.
Loosely translated:
A scientific research mission
has found that the ass keeps the legs in position.
The legs in turn act as a brace
to keep the ass in its proper place.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Michael Palmer
July 21, 2015 10:07 am

Heh. And people say Germans have no sense of humor.

July 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Abstract “From the reconstruction it can be seen that large eruptions, such as Mount Tambora in 1815, or clusters of eruptions, may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results.”
There’s been no Tambora since…well 1815. Pinatubo was about 25 years ago. You cant say “Tambora” and then blame a few little eruptions while whistling and looking at your feet. Jones said that it was statistically unlikely a hiatus would be longer than 17 years. Now its 20 years? Plus?

July 20, 2015 8:53 pm

This is just getting embarrassing for the Warmunists….
Even after the Warmunists arbitrarily Karl2015ed (now officially a verb) the global temp data, they still can’t explain the huge discrepancies that exist between RSS, UAH 6.0 and radiosonde global temperature data vs. HADCRUT4 and GISS LOTI data.
Sure, if the Warmunists arbitrarily add +0.12C/decade to ocean buoy temp data, they can easily make the “hiatus” disappear, but they still can’t absolve the HUGE discrepancies shown in the lower troposphere global temp data.
Now the Warmunists have yet another paper proposing increased volcanic activity over the past 20 years is causing the “hiatus”, even though there haven’t been any eruptions which come close to the size and magnitude of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
Warmunists are simply creating talking points for feckless politicians and MSM hacks to keep the CAGW hypothesis going for as long as possible.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that AMO/PDO warm/cool cycles, ENSO flux, Little Ice Age recovery and solar activity have been the primary driving forces behind climate since 1850. CO2 has perhaps increased global temps by around 0.2C over the past 165 years, but who the heck cares? That is absolutely NOTHING to be concerned about.
The strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years took place from 1933~1996. When these strong solar cycle ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend:
There hasn’t been a global warming trend in 19 years, despite roughly 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years. That’s pretty solid evidence that CO2 is not the driving force behind climate. The longer the “hiatus” lasts, the higher the probability that the CAGW hypothesis is a complete bust.
There is a high probability that global temps will continue to stay flat or even fall for the next 15 years given the current weak solar cycles, PDO’s 30-yr cool cycle which started in 2005, and the coming AMO 30-yr cool cycle starting around 2022. There is also an increasing chance that a 40~80 year Grand Solar Minimum could start from 2022, which would likely cause global temps to fall for the next 80 years if it occurs.
It’s time for the Warmunists to call it day and admit the CAGW hypothesis is a complete bust. Any further delay by the Warmunists in not officially disconfirming the CAGW hypothesis is bordering on criminal malfeasance of public funds.
NONE of CAGW’s hypothetical projections are coming even close to matching reality, so under the rules of the Scientific Method, the Warmunists must call it day….

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 20, 2015 11:07 pm

Doubt they will ever freely admit to any notion that they are wrong. We need a ‘big’ incorruptible character to publicly challenge them. Step forward please Mr Trump. After all, this is about politics and has never been about the science.

July 20, 2015 9:17 pm

“For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.”

Reply to  ferdberple
July 22, 2015 8:29 am

Great bumper sticker!

July 20, 2015 9:19 pm

Put 10 experts in a room and you will have 20 answers as to the best solution.

Eyal Porat
July 20, 2015 9:29 pm

For all those wiseguys telling us there was no volcano activity in the last 2-3 decades to explain the hiatus: Of course there was! You just did not see them since they were hidden in the oceans!…
See, I combined 2 theories in one. I can be a climate scientist too! 🙂

Mike Spilligan
July 20, 2015 10:04 pm

Is any study that covers a span of less than 10,000 years, preferably 20,000, nothing but “cherry picking”?

Reply to  Mike Spilligan
July 21, 2015 5:29 am

I think so.
Why do climastrolists ignore history?

July 20, 2015 10:07 pm

Actually, there is real progress. Elite climatologists are discovering that climate can change without man having anything to do with it. Now, let’s all count ten while these elite scurry to get the word out to hoi polloi, journalists and politicians. There should be some urgency about it; they don’t want them to find this out for themselves.
What, you say? Too late? Oh, I’m dying laughing.

Reply to  kim
July 20, 2015 10:18 pm

So poignant for them to say climate change hasn’t ended. Sure it hasn’t, but the end of their credibility is upon them.

July 20, 2015 10:40 pm

Climate is always changing ….except when it isn’t…and …uh….we know…er think…it might… its the oceans….Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation-like structure, although with more signal in the Atlantic, maybe…but not all the time….if it changes….or something else occurs….natural….

Reply to  highflight56433
July 21, 2015 5:31 am

That’s how I understand it.

July 20, 2015 10:59 pm

When I see “Their study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was supported by the European Commission.”, my mind immediately switches off. If the EC/EU ‘support’ something regarding climate, it’s for entirely political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

July 20, 2015 11:10 pm

The Earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.
200 years of “real-world historic climate records” confirm this.
Sometimes “natural variability (perhaps volcanos)” slows this down.
Which surprises the bejesus out of the models because that sort of “natural variability” is pretty darned random.
So the current hiatus/pause/cessation of warming – which Dr. Karl says does not exist and is merely an artifact of incorrect measurements – is a “to be expected” result of hitherto undetected volcanic eruptions which secretly occurred around 1997 and have been throwing off just enough aerosols ever since to stop temperature rise, except this year when there is one of those El Nino things which models can’t be expected to predict because, well, natural variability.
Got it. Makes total sense. Obviously CO2 is to blame because it is impossible to find any other explanation.
Except of course: WITCHES!

Reply to  Jay Currie
July 21, 2015 5:33 am

I’m kinda partial to the witch’s thing.
That sounds about right.

Reply to  mikerestin
July 21, 2015 10:13 am

A lot of parallels with the 16 and 17 century witch scare. I’m convinced that humans, even highly educated humans, crave a steady diet of fear. Where no danger exists, they will invent reasons to be afraid. Oh how skillfully do the demagogues bend and twist this craving.

July 20, 2015 11:21 pm

They are finding ways of ameliorating their claims through assumptions based on other assumptions and I agree with the argument that who has time to look argument.

July 20, 2015 11:43 pm

I received formal instruction just about sixty years ago, to the effect that climate was then changing and would always do so. Must have been correct, so why all the fuss?

July 21, 2015 12:07 am

Tambora led to cooling for a whole of 3 years, perhaps 4 or 5 depending on temp accuracy but by the end it may also have been a natural cold year.
Wonder what has changed that a similar eruption is now supposed to upset the temp for 20 years.
But it will surely scare some. More models needed, surely.
You have to love the gravy train.

Interested Observer
July 21, 2015 12:08 am

Am I the only one thinking that the statement:
“Human activity is causing the word to warm, and natural variability can cause this trend to slow down or speed up”
should actually be:
“Natural variability is causing the word to warm, and human activity can cause this trend to slow down or speed up”?
The first statement smells like scam to me.

Interested Observer
July 21, 2015 12:11 am

Sorry. Mod can you please change it from “word” to “world”. Typo is in the original text, I cut and pasted without proof-reading.

July 21, 2015 12:30 am

The rush to secure more funding before Paris is running at full pace.

old construction worker
July 21, 2015 12:35 am

“Extreme natural forces, such as strong volcanic eruptions, were shown to disrupt climate trends for decades.”
Interesting. If I remember, the ring of fire was quiet until a few years into the ” hiatus”. Eruptions may have added to the cooling trend but are not the cause of the cooling trend.

Village Idiot
July 21, 2015 12:44 am

I think that by “hiatus” the authors mean ‘slowdown’ – a more commonly used expression to describe the global surface temperature rise of the past 20 yrs or so.
Of course the ‘busted pause’ still exists, and can be documented in the recently adjusted satellite data, at around 14,000 ft

Stephen Richards
July 21, 2015 12:47 am

Is this Bouldon’s, of UEA enquiry fame, den of incompetence?

July 21, 2015 1:50 am

‘which have stalled since 1998 – is temporary.’ ‘cross my fingers and hope to die’
Or the real question is just how long can we drag on the ‘stalled’ claims for , now we stopped claiming it is still increasing, and will it be long enough for us to fill our boots on grant cash or retire ?
The younger climate ‘scientists’ must go to sleep ever night prying for the end of the ‘stall’ , before long some may even turn heretic and start to ask why their god has let them down when they have shown so much unquestioning faith .

Robert of Ottawa
July 21, 2015 2:28 am

… such as periods of intense sunlight
Excuse #? It’s the Sun that dun it.
What exactly do they mean by that? High Noon?

Robert of Ottawa
July 21, 2015 2:34 am

If they sincerely wanted to separate natural variation from man made variation, all they need to do is subtract the observed data from NOAA’s data.

Chris Wright
July 21, 2015 2:47 am

“The recent hiatus is not unusual in the context of the last 230 years”
The whole point is that during the last decade there has been no warming despite a 10% increase in CO2.
They should only compare with previous decades where there was a similar CO2 increase.
Comparing with the last 230 years is completely misleading, because over most of that period there was no significant CO2 increase.

July 21, 2015 2:51 am

In a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data…

Well why don’t they do a detailed study of more than 400 years’ worth of data? How about the 500 or so years data from Central England?
Oh but wait. They knew if they went back about 200 years the record would show an over all upward trend, while if they went back further they would find that up until about 200 years ago temperature was DROPPING for a few hundred years. And before that it was rising. And before that it was dropping. Almost like climate is cyclic.
Of course if a “scientist” just wanted to feed the meme that we are all doomed by CO2 cause temperature increases then going back only about 200 years makes sense.

Reply to  ddpalmer
July 21, 2015 6:13 am

The cherry harvest was good that year.

July 21, 2015 3:32 am

A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending…

George Carlin, the comedian was brilliant in skewering the way society uses and abuses words and language. He must be turning over in his grave in the way “Climate Change” is being used. Climate Change instead of meaning the obvious, climate changes, has been tortured to mean humanity is warming the planet thereby destroying civilization.
It’s one thing when society abuses language, quite another when supposed scientists use vague slang terms like “Climate Change” as a scientific term with definitive meaning. For scientists to do this is an atrocious disgrace to the core principles of science.
This alone is enough to prove how shallow climate science has become.

Reply to  Alx
July 21, 2015 7:28 am

When they say climate change, they are clearly talking about man-made catastrophic global warming, even though that is never stated explicitly.
And as had been pointed out, they are using their conclusion as part of the reasoning they use to reach the conclusion.
By starting out with the assumption that CAGW is occurring and is ongoing, they are able to prove it is occurring and ongoing.

July 21, 2015 3:57 am

“A slow-down in global warming is not a sign that climate change is ending”
No one has said that climate change is ending .It is happening all the time . What has been said is that climate change is in a pause and these pauses of 30 years plus happen regularly and naturally instead of the straight line warming being projected by the alarmist scientists. The latest pause has been happening for a decade or two . It has been interrupted by an El Nino period and then it is likely to continue for decades more despite what the CO2 levels may be.

Pete Brown
July 21, 2015 4:21 am

I haven’t read the paper, but presumably the key to this is that they used actually climate observations “from 1782 to 2000”. So they explicitly excluded the period of the modern hiatus that they were seeking to explain…?

July 21, 2015 4:48 am

“….Facts being distorted to create the illusion
That man controls climate, so now there’s confusion
As people no longer know what to believe,
Politicians know it is easy to trick and deceive;
Using fear and ignorance to prove they are right,
And of the real facts we so quickly lose sight….”

July 21, 2015 5:11 am

A more logical model curve fitting to obsevations would be to fit the “internal model” with and without anthropogenic emissions or CO2 forcing. Adding additional variables just increases the uncertainty (relative error} in the model because the variables are so inter-related.

Reply to  fhhaynie
July 21, 2015 6:16 am

Your wish is my command…
This is CO_2 only without anything like vulcanism, printed from Octave to be semi-pretty.
[corrected link]
This is R output. It shows the best fit to volcanism based on a match between VEI and measured effect on TOA insolation at Mauna Loa, which isn’t likely to be VERY accurate as volcanic emission of aerosols isn’t a simple function of VEI but rather depends on each volcano’s chemistry.
It includes all volcanoes with VEI 4 or greater, and is based on summed ejecta. It necessarily still includes CO_2’s log forcing, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t come close. The base CO_2 curve is the same as the first figure.
Note well that even big eruptions, like VEI 6 Pinatubo in 1991, are completely indistinguishable from ordinary year to year variations. There was a bigger “cooling bobble” in the mid-80s that was NOT associated with any volcano than there was from Pinatubo.
This is pretty solid evidence that vulcanism, no matter how you sum it up, is nearly irrelevant to climate until you reach at least VEI 6, and then it would be fairer to say that it is relevant to weather, not climate, as the effects of even VEI 6 events last at most 2-3 years, not 20 to 30. I have no reliable data for Tambora, but I think the assertion that it caused long term cooling is bullshit. It may well — at 10x more more Pinatubo — have caused cooling for as long as 3 to 5 years — but look even at Krakatoa. A mere blip, and one that isn’t even well synchronized with temperature shifts.
Volcanic aerosols have very little effect on the climate, and then only immediately after major eruptions.
Note well

Reply to  rgbatduke
July 21, 2015 6:20 am

Sorry, must have mistyped the URL:

July 21, 2015 5:40 am

This is just silly, although this isn’t the first time I’ve heard the hypothesis expressed. For one thing, there has been no sharp increase in vulcanism at the beginning of or during the pause. For another, we now have direct measurements of the effects of volcanic aerosols from the top of Mauna Loa for the last 60 or so years, and they show quite clearly that even major eruptions have are remarkably short lifetime of effect. Finally, there is the temperature record itself, which shows hardly any change in direct association with volcanic activity and which is quite capable of rising rapidly after a major volcano or falling rapidly when there isn’t one. Even Pinatubo produced hardly a blip in the strong warming that was occurring at the time, and one has to know it was there in order to see its effect as it was no larger or longer than non-volcanic variation on both sides of it.
Then there is the observation that the secular natural variation around a CO_2-only warming hypothesis with modest total sensitivity itself fits a 67 year, 0.1 C sinusoidal model extremely well. This could obviously be pure coincidence, but if it is not it is difficult to see why volcanic activity would be periodic with period 67 years. That doesn’t make it impossible (wait for it, we’ll hear from the planetary tide folks any second now:-) but it does make the causal mechanism difficult to understand.
Finally — and possibly most importantly — there the recent paper covered on WUWT that actually reviewed the effects of aerosols on the climate, something that is apparently one of the least understood aspects of climate science and a free parameter that has been much abused in modelling (where every model sets its own values for the effect of aerosols, all different, and then tunes to the reference period before unleashing the hapless “physics based” model on the future with a my-guess-is-as-good-as-yours parameter set to whatever makes the model come out the way that you want it/expect it to or aren’t surprised by, that is to say, a future with lots of warming). This paper found that aerosols have almost no effect on the climate — which is in precise correspondence with both Mauna Loa measurements of TOA insolation and fluctuation-dissipation theory applied to the temperature record — and demonstrated that climate models with no significant aerosol component, retuned to the reference period, exhibited warming with total climate sensitivity around 1.5 C per doubling, in rather excellent agreement with the entire historical record and not likely to be catastrophic or cause any signficant “climate change”.
This last paper I wish I’d saved/bookmarked as I’ve wanted to repost a link to it more than once, but I’ve got to teach in a short while and have no time to search for it now. It’s well worth a read, or re-read, however, in the context of the current post.

Reply to  rgbatduke
July 21, 2015 2:50 pm

“(wait for it, we’ll hear from the planetary tide folks any second now:-)”
Dr. Brown in this business one mustn’t take oneself to seriously, so not to disappoint your expectation:
Planets affect Earth’s orbital properties (Milankovic must be the most notable planetarist).
This type of signal
is found all the way from Yellowstone to the Hudson Bay but not in the Atlantic EuroAsia or Pacific. I have no clear idea why, but the thermal convection causes hot ‘stuff’ to flow from centre to periphery, cools and falls back. Not beyond reason to see it as an oscillating process. If external gravity forces give it a small ‘nudge’ now and then two will eventually synchronise.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 21, 2015 2:56 pm
July 21, 2015 5:42 am

Acknowledging natural variability is good but then that’s what the majority of sceptics say is driving warming. There’s still the failure to nail down climate sensitivity which in turn means they can’t definitively ID any human fingerprint of warming from natural variability. It’s just more pre-Paris arm-waving.

July 21, 2015 6:11 am

periods of intense sunlight

Oh, they mean daytime.

tom s
July 21, 2015 6:31 am

You mean the climate won’t stop changing? Say it isn’t so!!

Bruce Cobb
July 21, 2015 6:43 am

More desperate disinformation from the calamitous carbonaceous climate cult. They just keep piling it higher and deeper.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 21, 2015 1:05 pm

Yep, they should be putting into bags and selling it, that way we, the taxpayer, wouldn’t have to foot the bill.

July 21, 2015 8:45 am

Admitting “natural variation” or “random variation” is deadly to the AGW narrative in my opinion. It is a slippery slope from there to admitting that the influence of these things is possibly GREATER than the influence of human contributions to the trace gas CO2.
Oooh! Cracks are appearing in the armor.

Matt G
July 21, 2015 9:27 am

The pause has nothing to do with volcanoes, if anything because there has been less activity, the warming should have been more pronounced recently than before 1995.comment image
Adjusting global temperatures to compensate for Stratospheric Optical Thickness makes no difference over the pause.comment image
Volcanoes have had much greater affect on the SAOT before 1995.

July 21, 2015 10:12 am

“Human activity is causing the word to warm,”
Surely they mean WORLD not WORD, paid for by the EU commission and they can’t even get that right, how embarrassing.

Reply to  arfurhaddon
July 21, 2015 7:13 pm

No, words have been warming for quite some time now. I keep hoping they’ll reach a tipping point.

July 21, 2015 10:41 am

Next step: Manipulate volcanoes and revise eruption data as needed.

July 21, 2015 11:24 am
“Earth’s stratosphere is as clear as it’s been in more than 50 years. University of Colorado climate scientist Richard Keen knows this because he’s been watching lunar eclipses. “Since 1996, lunar eclipses have been bright, which means the stratosphere is relatively clear of volcanic aerosols. This is the longest period with a clear stratosphere since before 1960.”

July 21, 2015 12:05 pm

Please make up your mind – last I heard was that there NOAA was claiming there was no hiatus. Now there is but its caused by volcanoes?

July 21, 2015 12:59 pm

Volcanic eruptions affect weather, perhaps for few months, at most a year or two, while climate is a multi-decadal thing.
In the critical areas of the globe (up to now I found only three) where volcanic activity is along tectonic plates boundary where there is a convergence between warm and cold ocean currents, then the volcanic activity can be considered as a good proxy for the tectonic plates mechanical oscillations; periodicity of these oscillations is found in the climate data and referred to as the ‘natural variability’. The fact that some plates, but most notably the North American oscillates at 22 years (solar magnetic cycle) it could be that it is less to do with the sun itself, but more to do with the configuration within the solar system.

July 21, 2015 1:02 pm

I think the University got caught by the fact The Open finished on Monday, the world was still focused on Scotland but they hoped they could sneak it by after on an otherwise quiet day.

July 21, 2015 1:53 pm

200 years of data.
they analyzed 200 years of data.
To describe processes that likely occur in geologic time, they used a sample of 200 years.

johann wundersamer
July 21, 2015 4:32 pm

‘In a detailed study of more than 200 years’ worth of temperature data, results backed previous findings that short-term pauses in climate change are simply the result of natural variation.
The findings support the likelihood that a current hiatus in the world’s year-on-year temperature increases – which have stalled since 1998 – is temporary.’
Oh yes, the boy cried wolf.
The alarmed find arcadian pastures with relaxed grasing sheep. And no wolfes.
The boy who cried wolf talks about natural variability and temporary phenomenens.
The sweating alarmed smile and hasten home – maybe I forgot the fire under the pan.
And bide time ’till the next obligate alarm.
Why not. Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
July 21, 2015 4:54 pm

phenomenens 2 phenomenons. take it or leave it.
Thanks – Hans

July 21, 2015 7:06 pm

What if the earth is currently passing through a cloud of hypothetical dark matter? Wouldn’t that be a more logical explanation?

Pamela Gray
July 22, 2015 4:20 pm

hmmm. If climate models are run with increasing CO2 scenarios and then show that CO2 increases warming (the null hypothesis in this study, which I refer to as the “duh” hypothesis), and then run again but with natural variability scenarios and show that natural variability increases the length of trends, doesn’t that result negate the null hypothesis model in this study?
Just a low level armchair amateur askin a dumb question.

Pamela Gray
July 22, 2015 4:36 pm

The thing about volcanoes is that (and I am just thinking out loud here) if strong enough to spew sulfuric acid into the stratosphere and timed just right, they can prevent a La Nina ocean heat recharging episode from doing its thing, which is recharge the oceans so that we can stay warm. If a super volcano is timed just right, when the oceans are at the end of their heat stores and in need of clear sky conditions to keep us from being plunged into a Little Ice Age, it seems plausible to me that the repercussions can go beyond the immediate affects of the ash aerosols. I don’t know whether or not the mild slow down we are in now is or is not related to volcanic veils. But I do believe the serendipitous occurrence of super volcanic explosions with low oceanic heat stores can have results worse than we think and for longer than we think.

July 23, 2015 5:19 am

What confusion! I am still reading the information that was suggested to study that “fourth state of matter”. After reading that stuff and now the above, I am confused even more.
I believe that there is “lost opportunity” to really understand the sun – earth connection but there are so much to read that it gets in the way of some really needed research. I hope the scientist that are responsible for the non-historical data will step forward and look at the present to see that their “models” must be wrong and will always be wrong. That ball of fire in the sky is smarter than they all are. It puts out such an arrangement of non-essential information that each scientist can find anything they want if given enough time. Unfortunately, all I see is past history that is being used to determine the possible future.
All they need to do is go outside every once in a while and make sure the sun is still there, take a quick look and go back into their “computerized study room”, take a deep breath and thank God that it is still there.
Sorry, but I had to put in a last word. Hope nobody is offended.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights