Another excuse for the pause, Trenberth says 'Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends'

From the  AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE and the “if warming can’t overcome Nature, is it really there at all?” department.

Amid climate change debates revolving around limited increases in recent global mean surface temperature (GMST) rates, Kevin Trenberth argues that natural climate fluxes – larger than commonly appreciated – can overwhelm background warming, making plateaued rates, or hiatuses, deceiving in significance. After many years of monitoring, it’s clear that the GMST can vary from year to year, even decade to decade; these differences, Trenberth argues, are largely a result of internal natural variability. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean goes through periods of warming and cooling, can have a very strong impact on the climate by altering ocean currents, convection, and overturning. The PDO results in more sequestration of heat in the deep ocean during the negative phase of the PDO; therefore GMST tends to stagnate during this negative PDO phase, but increases during the positive phase. Indeed, observations and models show that the PDO is a key player in the two recent hiatus periods. Some other examples of causes behind natural variation include El Niño, volcanic activity, and decreased water vapor in the stratosphere. These natural variations are strong enough to mask steady background warming at any point in time, Trenberth argues. As researchers develop and test climate change models, it’s important to expect these variations and plan for them.


Article #7: “Has there been a hiatus?,” by K.E. Trenberth at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO.

This typical climate lame-o press release (where getting the PR is more important than the paper itself) gives an incomplete citation. No Journal. No DOI, No URL. I’ve looked all over trying to find the citation in the press release and have come up empty. If anyone knows where it is, please leave a comment


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 13, 2015 2:16 pm

Well, the trend can’t amount to much then, can it?

Reply to  Harold
August 13, 2015 5:24 pm

There’s no pause….NOAA said so

george e. smith
Reply to  Latitude
August 13, 2015 10:18 pm

Hey ! The climate is the climate. It changes; get used to it.
“Internal climate variability ” is gobbledegook, and sad to say it has a Kiwi accent.
The reason why so many “scientists” especially climate ones, wear exotic beards and other facial embelishments, is they seldom shave, because they just can’t bear to look in a mirror; they are so ashamed of asking for money to propagate this garbage.
And no I didn’t say they are all that way.

Reply to  Latitude
August 14, 2015 6:06 am

The reason why so many “scientists” especially climate ones, wear exotic beards and other facial embelishments, is
the reason is clear. after they shave no one will recognize them. allowing them to escape detection once the GW bubble collapses.
however, this is nothing new. one of the James Bond novels employed just this device. likely some climate scientists learned to read somewhere in their careers.

Reply to  Latitude
August 14, 2015 7:16 am

George, I’ve always been amazed that people get up in the morning, look in the mirror and make themselves look like that……and approve of it

Reply to  Latitude
August 14, 2015 2:53 pm

And Karl et. al. There’s been a really hot bit of ocean that was never noticed before. Oh and it used to be really cold.
But hang on: Hasn’t the IPCC told us that natural variability and the sun don’t matter? Isn’t there a bristle-cone pine somewhere that proves it’s all CO2?
This could all be settled with a simple scientific experiment: Kill all human beings except one. Leave her with a thermometer and she can report what happens to the temperature.
Woops! This experiment design may need some work in the details. Maybe two females each with thermometers so they could report the results to each other.

Reply to  Harold
August 13, 2015 7:20 pm

Death masks the trends of life. This makes as much sense as that excuse for the pause.

Reply to  Harold
August 14, 2015 5:59 am

Kevin Trenberth argues that natural climate fluxes – larger than commonly appreciated – can overwhelm background warming, making plateaued rates, or hiatuses, deceiving in significance.
if natural variability can overwhelm warming, it can also create false warming. For example:
Kevin Trenberth argues that natural climate fluxes – larger than commonly appreciated – can overwhelm absence of background warming, making increased rates, or global warming, deceiving in significance.

george e. smith
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 10:15 am

” background warming ” is warming, and it is part of natural climate variability.
It warms, it cools, over 30 years, it’s climate, and it changes. Less than 30 years, it’s weather, and it changes even more and even faster.
If it ever stops changing, either climate or weather; put your head down between your knees, and kiss your are goodbye.

August 13, 2015 2:17 pm

Reply to  Admad
August 13, 2015 4:29 pm

Lovin it …

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Admad
August 15, 2015 12:50 pm

So we currently have a “Strong El Nino”, but so far little warming seen. How can that be if we are living in a ‘Warming Earth”? Shouldn’t we be blowing out all previous records month after month?

August 13, 2015 2:18 pm
Keith Willshaw
Reply to  RickA
August 14, 2015 5:52 am

The killer paragraph in that article is this
“Another reason to think there had been a hiatus in the rise of GMST comes from comparing model expectations and observations. Human activities are causing increases in heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (4). These increases are expected to cause rising atmospheric temperatures. Atmospheric aerosols, mostly from fossil fuel combustion, are expected to reduce this rise to some extent. The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”
It doesn’t seem to occur to him that the real reason may be that the model expectation is wrong.
As an engineer who has worked with complex chemical process simulations for years I know what would happen if I said to my customers that it wasn’t the model that was wrong so it must be their plant.

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
August 14, 2015 11:39 am

Keith, I have similar experience modeling complex chemical systems for the past 40 years. If we ever see a situation where the ‘noise’ (natural variation) is greater than the ‘effect’ (AGW) that we are trying to find, we simply do many more experiments to reduce the noise, or declare the model useless.
Of course, Trenberth is free to do more experiments if he can find planets he can use.

Reply to  bigterguy
August 14, 2015 11:56 am

It’s best not to call the natural variation the “noise” when the application of the model is to control,

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
August 15, 2015 7:20 am

Keith: Your post is a classic example of confirmation bias. You read an article making the case for X, but pulled out one paragraph that seems to support Y.
“The combination of decadal variability and a trend from increasing greenhouse gases makes the GMST record more like a rising staircase than a monotonic rise.”

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
August 15, 2015 10:49 am

Felix: The problem is that they used the riser portion of the “stairstep” to calibrate the models. Now the tread portion is giving them fits.
If you go back another hundred years, you find a stairstep going down.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
August 15, 2015 12:53 pm

I do electromagnetic model simulations. SImilar to you, if I ever suggested that the actual measurements were wrong and the model correct, I would get laughed out of the office. That does not mean that there is a place for examining the measurement method to insure accuracy, but in the end, the measurement is the proof, the simulation is only an indicator of what the truth may be.

Reply to  RickA
August 14, 2015 7:22 am
Gunga Din
August 13, 2015 2:20 pm

How can anyone say “The Science is Settled” when there are so many things they didn’t account for?

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 13, 2015 2:36 pm

How dare you?
Physics was settled a century ago. We are only working out the uninteresting details now!

Gunga Din
Reply to  simple-touriste
August 13, 2015 3:31 pm

I’m just a layman, not a climate scientist. I don’t know any better.

george e. smith
Reply to  simple-touriste
August 14, 2015 10:19 am

Actually, all the really interesting physics, happened in the first 10^-43 seconds after the ” tiny ” bang. Excuse me, it was a very tiny bang; almost point like. Maybe it was 10^-34 seconds, which is a whole Billion times longer.

Reply to  george e. smith
August 14, 2015 10:31 am

Actually, all the really interesting physics, happened in the first 10^-43 seconds after the ” tiny ” bang. Excuse me, it was a very tiny bang; almost point like. Maybe it was 10^-34 seconds, which is a whole Billion times longer.

Here’s my explanation of inflation, as you go down the wormhole, black holes (and the start of the big bang) are points, the logical conclusion is that at a minimum the 3 dimensions of space were collapsed, just like all of the other 8 or 9 dimensions string theory says exists but are all rolled up.

Reply to  simple-touriste
August 15, 2015 10:50 am

We should also close the patent office since everything worth inventing has already been invented.

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 14, 2015 7:06 am

I find this to be the most amazing thing that goes unmentioned. Along with the size of the miss and the size of the adjustments. These topics which are: 1) The science is settled 30 years ago except they obviously keep discovering errors in what they thought 2) the size of the miss is equal to the entire warming they say has happened in the last 70 years. They thought temps would be 0.5C higher than they are which is equal roughly to all the warming since we started putting CO2 in greater quantities. 3) The adjustments to the land record now have doubled what the satellites say has happened. The adjustments are fully half of all the change they say has happened since 1900. If the average person knew any/all of these facts they would be greatly less concerned. Oh wait. They are greatly less concerned. Maybe they are smarter than the “scientists” think.

August 13, 2015 2:22 pm

*deep breath* Haahaahaahaahaahaahaahaahaa!
Just when I think Trenberth cannot possibly be as oblivious and/or evil as he seems to be, he publishes again!

August 13, 2015 2:24 pm

Of course Variability has nothing to do with increasing trends…only flat or declining trends.

Reply to  Larry
August 13, 2015 2:57 pm

…. yep, has nincompoop scientist Trenberth ever not started with the conclusion, EVER ??

Michae Jankowski
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 13, 2015 3:36 pm

Yes. In “private,” in 2009, in the first batch of Climategate emails…
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 13, 2015 4:55 pm

Ha ha. Do you think that the idiot’s figured out yet that heat hiding in the deep oceans can’t cause a positive water vapor feedback effect ?
… well, actually maybe in his world it can.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Larry
August 13, 2015 8:25 pm

Exactly, Larry. Our lack of Nat Var for the past 2 centuries following the coldest period of the Holocene would surely indicate the reverse of man-made CO2 warming. Nat Var is not just responsible for the pause but for all of that tiny 0.8c increase since GAT records began.

Reply to  Larry
August 14, 2015 4:21 am

Perhaps he’s got it wrong way round; perhaps the warming is natural, and the variability that masks it is man-made.
We’re doomed either way.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Larry
August 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Ya, he kind of shot himself in the foot here. An “Own Goal”. If natural variations could “mask warming”, they could also impersonate warming. Maybe the warming we saw in the 1980s, 1990s was just due to natural variations (like we skeptics have been saying for a long time).

August 13, 2015 2:25 pm

Just got this from No Tricks Zone by a german Meteorologist. Interesting. This came from a discussion about the former NOAA climate researcher, Dr. Dilley, who claims we are heading into a very cold period.
Hans-Dieter Schmidt 13. August 2015 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Well said. May I contribute a confirmation of Dilleys speech from an entirely different direction? Every synoptical meteorologist should have noticed that there is an extraordinary series of most intense low pressure systems on the Atlantic. Just today there is one with core pressure below 975 hPa! In average this happens every five years ONCE in summer, but a sieries like this one I never experueinced in more than 40 years of work as a bench forecaster.
The intensity, amongst other phenomena, depends on the temperature difference between high and low latitudes. The bigger the difference, the stronger the low pressure systems. Thats why in winter this is a regular phenomenon – there is much more seasonal variability in the arctics than in the tropics. If there is a series like this occurring in summer, there is just one conclusion: it must be extraordinary cold in the arctics this summer! This must not necessarily be mirrored by sea ice cover instantly, but wait for the next few years.
More information about this can be found in my article (in German) over by the EIKE here:
Dipl.-Met. Hans-Dieter Schmidt

DD More
Reply to  Dahlquist
August 13, 2015 2:43 pm

Hans-Dieter, your “If there is a series like this occurring in summer, there is just one conclusion: it must be extraordinary cold in the arctics this summer! This must not necessarily be mirrored by sea ice cover instantly, but wait for the next few years.” seems to be showing up in Icelandic temperatures.
H/T to NoTricks
The first thirteen weeks of summer this year have been the coldest in Reykjavik in over twenty years, reveals Icelandic meteorologist Trausti Jónsson.
The northern city of Akureyri fares even worse – one has to go back around thirty years to find a colder summer. Last year was Akureyri’s warmest summer in 67 years.
Summer in Reykjavik has not been this cold since 1992, although the summer of 1979 was by far the coldest. The warmest summer in Reykjavik in the past 67 years was in 2010.
Summer in Akureyri has not been this cold since 1983.
Check out the weather forecast for your part of Iceland on Iceland Monitor

Reply to  DD More
August 13, 2015 3:48 pm

Wouldn’t the water temperatures in the N. Atlantic pretty much control Iceland’s air temperatures? So much for he claim that the oceans are getting warmer.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  DD More
August 13, 2015 3:59 pm

Hans-Dieter, DD Moore. This cold summer has also been the case in eastern Canada where the snow was about a month late in melting off and May and June were ~5C cooler than normal – it still goes down to ~11-14C at night in July August. I note also that new ice is forming in the Beaufort Sea over the past week. Only the Danish Meteorological Institute is reporting near normal ice extent and NSIDC and Cryosphere Today (both US) are showing rapid decline of ice. I trust Scandinavians with Arctic metrics over the other politicized bunch. It is a sacrosanct area for them, having done all the early spectacular exploration of both poles.
Everything is being staged for the Paris Climate meeting. The fools are holding it in December. With the cold water around the top half of Europe, I’m predicting a cold white Christmas for Paris. Canada and the US (maybe except for the westernmost part) will also plunge into another in a string of record cold winters.

Reply to  DD More
August 13, 2015 6:13 pm

One the el nino rains start flooding CA, they will not even have the drought angle to play up anymore.
BTW, who are these people that think droughts are some new and highly unusual phenomenon?
They seem to be everywhere.
They know nothing, but are sure of everything!

Reply to  DD More
August 14, 2015 6:13 am

the Paris Climate meeting. The fools are holding it in December.
thus Climate Parisites.

Reply to  DD More
August 14, 2015 12:05 pm

Gary Pearse says:
August 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
… I note also that new ice is forming in the Beaufort Sea over the past week. Only the Danish Meteorological Institute is reporting near normal ice extent and NSIDC and Cryosphere Today (both US) are showing rapid decline of ice. I trust Scandinavians with Arctic metrics over the other politicized bunch.

I am puzzled by the difference. Presumably they should be using the same data and methods.
Farther down the ice page is a graph for the temperature north of 80 deg. I note that the temperature has been pretty much glued to the average since it went above 0 deg. C. I realize that Reykjavik, and Akureyri are not north of 80 but the difference between there and the area covered by the graph intrigues me.

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 13, 2015 2:56 pm

NE Ohio has had about 3 weeks of summer so far this year, last night it dropped into the upper 50’s F.

Reply to  micro6500
August 16, 2015 4:49 am

micro — 51F just the other morning here in west MD. Still hasn’t got to 90F here (89F couple times).

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 13, 2015 3:29 pm

Three weeks ago, the Greenland ice melt/gain experienced a rapid gain in ice mass and moved above the long term average. At that time, most of the Greenland coastline was showing red = ice mass loss. Three weeks ago was also where Arctic temps, as shown at DMI, took a moderate dip below average and have stayed low in the interim. Then around 10 days days ago the Greenland Ice Sheet page started showing blue mass/gain areas. I would suspect that this is tied in with the dip in Arctic temps from 3 weeks prior. The south end of Greenland is showing the most ice mass gain, which seems odd.
Something else that has caught my attention recently is that in looking at daily temps in many locations around the globe, I have noted that in well over half of worldwide locations the minimum temps are no longer running above average. A 14 day temp observation shows mostly average minimums. On top of that, a moderate % of locations are showing below average highs over a 14 day period. This is a noticeable change as compared to the 9 month period from last Sept through May of this year. I can feel the difference here where I live in Northern California. This is the nicest summer of the last 4+ years, with mainly average temps. There have been a few summer rains. Nighttime temperatures have remained below 60F for much of the summer. This last week the nights have gone down to 50F. Things are cooling down, and this is going to become more noticeable in the upcoming years.

Reply to  goldminor
August 13, 2015 6:15 pm

I think it was only west coast of Greenland showing ice loss. The Eastern side, and esp. the southeast, has been colder and colderer for quite some time. Or so I believe.

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 13, 2015 5:58 pm

Look here, it is GFS model predicting low pressure system near Alaska with 939hPa. This looks really low. It is 10% difference in air pressure against maximum pressures.
Look on 25th August 06:00z

August 13, 2015 2:27 pm

It’s in this week’s Science, 14 August 2015, 691-692. See

August 13, 2015 2:28 pm

RickA wins! But no author is shown in the link…

August 13, 2015 2:28 pm

It’s on Trenberth’s CGD website:
Trenberth, K. E., 2015: Has there been a hiatus? Science, 349, 691-692. doi:10.1126/science.aac9225.

August 13, 2015 2:33 pm

This is the CYA excuse.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  kokoda
August 13, 2015 4:35 pm

A covering of holey lace if you ask me. They are saying “this global warming isn’t due to natural variations, but natural variations are hiding it”.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
August 13, 2015 4:43 pm

That the situation is one in which an anthropogenic signal is buried in the noise of natural variation is a faulty theory, for the reason that I recently related to phaedo.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
August 13, 2015 6:20 pm

If the phrase were not so hackneyed, I would say “You cannot make this stuff up.”
If the CAGW storyline was the subject of a work of fiction, no one would buy it, and anyone who started reading it would throw it in the trash.

Myron Mesecke
August 13, 2015 2:35 pm

Some good quotes from Miracle on 34th Street kind of explains these people.
“Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”
“You mean it’s like, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again?”
“I believe, I believe, it’s silly but I believe.”

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
August 13, 2015 10:28 pm

Fake it ’til you make it.

Jim Berkise
August 13, 2015 2:36 pm

Trenberth, K. E., 2015: Has there been a hiatus? Science, 349, 691-692. doi:10.1126/science.aac9225.

August 13, 2015 2:36 pm

…….but if Trenberth can’t define the internal, natural variations he, eo ipso, cannot know whether there is any human-caused warming. He should go back to university and do a course in logic.

Reply to  AndyE
August 13, 2015 6:23 pm

I think he should go back to school, but this time just make it trade school.
Maybe he can work with his hands. After all, those who have a hard time with logic and weighty concepts often have some more physical talent. I think it has something to do with how a person’s genes ever survived this long.

August 13, 2015 2:36 pm

Kevin, just call it Dark Warming so we can have a more formalized name for it and move on from there. If that does not do it for you then String Theory Warming is also available.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 13, 2015 2:48 pm

Might try to work in a variant of The Harmonic Convergence, somehow.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 13, 2015 2:49 pm

heh the trenberth bosun effect…..

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  dmacleo
August 13, 2015 3:13 pm

More like the Trenberth Bozo Effect…

Ray H
Reply to  dmacleo
August 14, 2015 5:41 am

Trenberth’s Uncertainty Principle

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 13, 2015 6:26 pm

Super-symmetry Warming might work. For all warming, there is a corresponding cooling, equal in magnitude put opposite sign.
He already has a good start what kind of spin the warming needs to have.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 13, 2015 10:31 pm

Somewhere Schrodinger’s Cat is in a box here – simultaneously cold and warm.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
August 14, 2015 4:16 am

It won’t be happy about that. Cats like to be warm without any cold. I can predict that when you open the box you will find a very grumpy cat.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 14, 2015 6:17 am

Dark Warming
Perfect. We don’t have a Pause. What we have is Dark Warming. The sort of warming that is happening, but no one can see.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 15, 2015 10:57 am

Well most of the warming was at night.

Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2015 12:52 pm

” Well most of the warming was at night.”
No, not really, on average it cooled slightly more over night than it warmed the day before, and this was for the period from 1940 to 2013.

August 13, 2015 2:41 pm

What pause? I though Zeke told us that the new fake temperatures said the pause did not exist.
Meanwhile back in the real world, why do these fraudsters not tell us the AMO is still in the warm phase and when it turns the NH will experience 30 yrs of colder climate?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Paul Homewood
August 13, 2015 3:42 pm

You’re on point, Paul.
In AGW-land, either Tom Karl is right (there’s been no pause) or Kevin Trenberth is right (there is a pause but it’s due to natural variation), but both of them cannot be right.
The logical of the situation is anti-symmetric because both of them could be wrong.
Science also recently published Tom Karl’s pause buster article. So, it appears that Science magazine has no scruple about publishing back-to-back mutually contradictory articles, and touting each of them as independently true.

Reply to  Pat Frank
August 13, 2015 3:59 pm

A good journal should have no problem publishing simultaneous articles that are mutually contradictory. They just should not be “touting” any of them as being “true.”

Just Steve
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 13, 2015 5:14 pm

In AGW-land, either Tom Karl is right (there’s been no pause) or Kevin Trenberth is right (there is a pause but it’s due to natural variation), but both of them cannot be right.
So, on which one is the 97% science is settled sit down and shut up based on?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 15, 2015 9:53 am

Mutually contradictory papers in serious journals typically argue over interpretation of some observable, James, not about the existence of the observable itself.
Science Magazine has stupidly painted itself into a corner.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
August 13, 2015 4:28 pm

It has been demonstrated time and time again that were it not for “administrative” adjustments there would be little to no warming in the post war period.

August 13, 2015 2:41 pm

I got it, it’s in Al Gore’s lock box. And it comes out with enough variability to cause problems for modeling. We don’t actually know where the lock box is but that’s not a concern for its handlers.

August 13, 2015 2:42 pm

Read Trenberth’s comment in Science. RickA link. He trashes Karl, then goes with his ocean heat thing, and predicts the positive PDO will start the warming again. Never occurs to him that part of the 1975-2000 rise might have been natural also. He embraces natural cooling, but not natural warming. Utterly illogical. The desperation amongst the warmunists continues to mount. Their consensus facade is visibly cracking.

Leonard Weinstein
August 13, 2015 2:45 pm

Kevin Trenberth has just become a skeptic of the very lukewarm type. These people do not state that there is no human contribution to climate variation, only that it is likely small and dominated by natural variation, and thus not an issue of concern by itself. However, there should be some concern of the direction of natural variation (we are likely near the end of the Holocene based on duration of several previous interglacials), and severe cooling is a possible problem of great importance. The CAGW and AGW emphasis would make humanity prepare for the wrong direction of climate variation to be concerned with, and greatly increase the chance for not being properly prepared.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
August 13, 2015 3:39 pm

Leonard “preparing in the wrong direction”..I submit that wasting capital, materials and labor to pursue an energy policy that is manifestly incapable of supporting modern industrial agriculture and manufacturing much less provide a surplus capacity is the wrong direction no matter what!

Reply to  fossilsage
August 13, 2015 8:50 pm

True dat!

August 13, 2015 2:48 pm

Seems internal climate variability must be significant. Maybe the major factor. Alarmists take note.

August 13, 2015 2:50 pm

I figured it all out about a decade ago.
atlantis is arising again. while arising it is sucking the heat from the oceans to power itself.

August 13, 2015 2:52 pm

Geez –
natural climate fluxes don’t mask what is happening,
they ARE what is happening.

Gunga Din
Reply to  JohnWho
August 13, 2015 3:39 pm

I think what he’s saying is that what is natural is now abnormal. It’s a cultural thing. Get with the times! 😎

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 13, 2015 3:53 pm

Ah, so the missing heat isn’t really missing
it is just being masked by natural cooling.

Gary Hladik
August 13, 2015 2:59 pm

“Trenberth says ‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’”
Well, look who just caught up! 🙂

Louis Hunt
August 13, 2015 3:01 pm

In other words, climate scientists like Trenberth don’t really know what is happening. Natural climate fluxes could be masking the warming, or they could be masking the cooling. Only time will tell, which is what I have suspected all along.

Joel Snider
August 13, 2015 3:02 pm

Chris Mooney is already pushing this one over at WAPO (and I’m sure the rest of the coordinated media will be following dutifully) because, apparently, this – the 70th or so excuse for the Pause (I’ve lost track, but they tend to volley back and forth between ‘it never happened at all’ and the ‘rationalization/excuse of the week’ for why it did) – but THIS is the one that’s going to away our favorite ‘talking point’.
But I’ll bet… I’ll just bet… there will be another excuse before the end of next week.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 13, 2015 3:51 pm

Mooney did include the figures for amount of change in temp right there in open sight as .9 degree in the 20th century and .01 degree in a ten year period in the 21st century. Really? Is that what the “alarm” is all about? No wonder “natural variability” can mask it! I tried to post a comment pointing that out but the Post wouldn’t let me sign in.

August 13, 2015 3:03 pm

So, despite all claims, all the science, all the models, all the scare mongering, one of the AGW scientists has simply stated they can’t discern the signal from the noise.

Reply to  phaedo
August 13, 2015 4:16 pm

In communications systems engineering a “signal” carries information to us from the past but in control systems engineering this “signal” would have to travel at superluminal speed to carry to us information from the future; thus the signal power and noise power are necessarily nil. As the aim of global warming research is to support control the terms “signal” and “noise” are misplaced.

August 13, 2015 3:04 pm

TRENBERTH- you are clueless. The earth is in an overall cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum , and what we have now is a pause in the overall cooling trend. You have it backwards , but then again that is par for AGW enthusiast.
The real trend below.
Today obliquity is less then it was around 8000 BC , more favorable for glaciation ,as well as Precession being much more favorable for glaciation. .
During the period around the time of 8000 BC , the N.H. experienced Perihelion during the summer less favorable for glaciation in contrast to today when the N.H. experiences Aphelion during the summer.
Based solely on Milankovitch Cycles the earth is much more favorable today for glaciation as opposed to 8000 BC.
Orbit eccentricity if taken into account being more or less neutral during that time span 8000 BC- 2000 AD.
What is interesting is from the Holocene Optimum through today each warm period, those being the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and the Modern Warm Period just recently, has tended to be cooler then the one previous to the most recent one.
I think the slow moving cycles such as Land /Ocean Arrangements, Milankovitch Cycles , to name two are in a gradual cooling trend with solar variability secondary and primary effects being superimposed upon this gradual cooling cycle. PDO,AMO,ENSO and volcanic activity being superimposed upon all of this to give a further refinement of the temperature trends, which I think might be linked to earth’s LOD, the spin rate of the earth. Also the lunar cycle may be playing a role with the ocean currents, and hence global temperature trends over the shorter term.
Future, random events( terrestrial/extra terrestrial ) must always be taken into some consideration which would be superimposed upon the climate cycle due to all of the items I mentioned in the above.
The upshot being(the random element aside) the climate is heading to a potentially very cold period if solar variability continues to decline along with the geo-magnetic field of the earth . This next cold period has a chance to at least equal Little Ice Age conditions if not exceed them in my opinion.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 13, 2015 11:17 pm

Salavatore: You said a lot and appear to have covered all the bases. But in the end, whether it’s cooling or it’s warming, no one really knows what will happen and when it will happen.
We are just starting to understand a few of the dozens and dozens of triggers that tie in, overlap, affect, etcetera what goes on in and on this wonderful earth of ours when it comes to weather.
We are amateurs when we second guess nature.
The climate doomers may just succeed in culling the humans from this world. We have spend lavishly to mitigate a hypothetical warming of 0.08 degrees C that can’t be distinguished from just plain good old noise.
And while the world fights this apocalyptic warming that will fry all of us, the possibility of the return to a colder climate for the foreseeable future (maybe a little ice age) through the back door will catch us all by surprise after we have eliminated all of our cheapest and most reliable power sources and replaced them with expensive and intermittent power of the wind and solar variety.
By the time our governments and industries rev up to the colder climate, how many hundreds of millions will perish? Task completed! Or was this always the intent of the powers that be behind the powers that are? Could they be that smart / knowledgeable and have played everyone?
Just wonderin’.

August 13, 2015 3:07 pm

A little more on my views.
The explanation below is for the Little Ice Age and I think it can be applied to the YD, despite the fact Milankovitch Cycles were not that favorable at that time , but the Ice Dynamic for sure was and that changed the whole dynamic of the playing field and is the factor which made abrupt climatic changes to happen so frequently 20000 to 10000 years ago.
The YD was just one of many abrupt climatic changes during that time period.
This theory combined with my input for how the Little Ice Age may have started can also be applied to the YD, with the big difference being the all important Ice Dynamic at the time of the YD ,which made the climate more vulnerable to change with much less forcing.
This article is good but it needs to emphasize the prolonged minimum solar /volcanic climate connection( which it does not mention ), and other prolonged minimum solar climate connections such as an increase in galactic cosmic rays more clouds, a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution/concentration changes (which it does not do ) which all lead to cooler temperatures and more extremes .
In addition they do not factor the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field.
When this is added to the context of this article I think one has a comprehensive explanation as to how the start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period may have taken place and how like then (around 1275 AD) is similar to today with perhaps a similar result taken place going forward from this point in time.

I want to add the Wolf Solar Minimum went from 1280-1350 AD ,followed by the Sporer Minimum from 1450-1550 AD.
This Wolf Minimum corresponding to the onset of the Little Ice Age.
John Casey the head of the Space and Science Center, has shown through the data a prolonged minimum solar event/major volcanic eruption correlation.
Today, I say again is very similar to 1275 AD. If prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched (similar to the Wolf Minimum) accompanied by Major Volcanic Activity I say a Little Ice Age will once again be in the making.
Milankovitch Cycles still favoring cold N.H. summers if not more so then during the last Little Ice Age , while the Geo Magnetic Field is weaker in contrast to the last Little Ice Age.
I would not be surprised if the next Little Ice Age comes about if the prolonged solar minimum expectations are realized in full.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 14, 2015 6:39 am

How is it that Climate Science is settled science, but it cannot explain the LIA?
How can someone predict the future if they cannot even predict that past? Even small children recognize that it is harder to predict the future than the past.
Oh wait. Climate science doesn’t “predict” the future. They “project” the future. Where prediction means “what will happen” and projection means “what could happen”.
I project the winning ticket in every future 6-49 lottery will be ‘123456’. Well it could happen. About the same odds as predicting future climate successfully.

August 13, 2015 3:09 pm

Trenberth is saying that year to year variability is to GW as are ocean waves to the tide coming in. Seems an believable idea.
And remember, with waves, every 7th one is a El Niño, I mean, a big one.

Reply to  trafamadore
August 13, 2015 7:28 pm

Which is which?
Well, since the global war scam is based on partial anomalies for separated sites masqueraded as a global signature. Waves sure doesn’t seem to qualify except that waves are also unique to a location.
Tide sure doesn’t seem to qualify as it is lunar and solar gravity effects upon a large aqueous oceans. As such, tide has some minor effects on shore dependent creatures and estuaries, but zero impact to Polar regions and anywhere more than a couple of miles away from the ocean’s edge.
Ooooh, and ever so frightening 7th El Nino.
And the seventh nino of the seventh cycle of nino’s? Will that be when the world is destroyed? Is that 2050, 2070, 2090 or the frequently threatened 2030?
Un-falsifiable, so that even after 2150, the climate alarmist doom cult will still pray to the AGW for deliverance all the while insisting that honest science should bow to their preferred consensus?
Bag it, daffy traffy, head on down to sou’s all-whoppers-all-of-the-time and order one of her polar sundaes while you browse the online union-suits. (for those not so privileged to know, a union suit is whole body long underwear, preferably with the drop down hamper for comfort.)

Reply to  trafamadore
August 13, 2015 9:17 pm

doesn’t the tide come in, then go out?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  trafamadore
August 14, 2015 1:34 am

what is the wavelength of your GW? and how will you know when the tides are going down and not up. Remember with NOAA/NASA/NCAR/USGS every 7th member is a bozo

Reply to  trafamadore
August 14, 2015 6:45 am

year to year variability is to GW
you have it backwards. Or do we call the pattern of ice ages and interglacials noise? Pretty big noise.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 8:11 am

If climatologists were engaged in an attempt at communication it would be appropriate to call it “noise.” However, they are engaged in an attempt at control. There is an asymmetry between the direction from which the information comes to us between communication and control. For communication it comes from the past. For control it comes from the future.
In the former case the information can be carried by a signal traveling at less than or equal to light speed. In the latter case the signal would have tor travel at greater than light speed but this is impossible under relativity theory. Thus, use of the terms “signal” and “noise” is inappropriate in relation to the problem of control.
A scientific theory of climate would convey information to us from the future thus possibly facilitating control of our climate. However, climatologists have spurned development of one in favor of a doomed attempt separating the “signal” from the “noise” through averaging of the signal + noise. The fruits of their labors – the general circulation models – convey no information to us at all.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 9:03 am

Terry….you say: ” In the latter case the signal would have tor travel at greater than light speed but this is impossible under relativity theory.”

You are mistaken in this case, because in the framework of relativity theory, the future does not exist. Consider this example. Just for the moment, make believe (thought experiment) that you can travel faster than light, and you had a super-duper telescope that had infinite resolution. Now, experience an “event.” After this event concludes, travel out into space in any direction at 1.5 times the speed of light. When you’ve traveled several light minutes, point the telescope backwards and aim at the “location” of the event you witnessed. You’ll be able to view it a second time.

After you conclude this “thought experiment” I ask you …..where can you travel with your telescope to “view” the future? The answer is that the future does not exists in space-time.

I hope this helps you with your understanding of relativity.

Reply to  Jerzy Strzelecki
August 14, 2015 9:31 am

Hi Jerzy,
It is mass-energy that is prohibited by relativity theory from moving at greater than light speed. As information lacks mass-energy, relativity theory does not prohibit movement of it at greater than light-speed. If you see a truck coming at you from the left and turn your steering wheel to the right to avoid a crash you have received information from the future at superluminal speed facilitating control of the outcome of the event.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 9:08 am

Jerzy S says:
… in the framework of relativity theory, the future does not exist.
Actually it does, as Harvard physicist Brian Greene has written. But the problem is similar: even though the future and past exist, we can extract no useful information from the future.
Of course, there’s always thiotimoline…

Reply to  dbstealey
August 14, 2015 9:44 am

Actually it does, as Harvard physicist Brian Greene has written. But the problem is similar: even though the future and past exist, we can extract no useful information from the future.

While I like listening to Dr Greene, some of the physicists I’ve chatted with don’t think much.
But, reality isn’t really very real, go read up on Wheelers Delayed Choice experiments, which have been validated in lab experiments.
Think of a present and future where everything is a Schrodinger Cat box, some open and some still closed, where opening one in the present actually alters reality, outside the light cone (spooky action at a distance).
It’s enough to make a person drink 🙂
When I want to educate myself, I read Feynman’s lectures, when I want a headache I read Penrose’s Road to Reality. Wheeler is just plain trippy.
If a future already exists it IMO quickly devolves into one big clouds of probabilities.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 14, 2015 11:24 am

Greene’s claim is contradicted by large sample validation of information theory. It features a pair of state spaces each state of which is a description of a physical system. By observing the state in one of these state-spaces one might gain information about the unobserved state in the other state-space. Thus, for example, by observing the state of the climate system in the present one might obtain information about the state of the climate system in the future.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 9:18 am

dbstealey……no, the future does not exist. If it does, use the constraints I used in the “thought experiment” to tell me 1) which direction to point the telescope and/or 2) where to travel to to get a “view” of the future. Otherwise, post a link to Brian Greene’s work, or explain it in your own words.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 9:27 am

Jerzy S,
Instead of arguing, why don’t you read some of Dr. Greene’s books?
The Fabric Of The Cosmos is one that explains it. There are several others.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 10:14 am

I agree. What I wrote isn’t contradicted by anything you wrote; the future or future(s) are there, we just can’t do anything about it. There’s no way to extract useful info about the future.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 14, 2015 10:24 am

I agree. What I wrote isn’t contradicted by anything you wrote; the future or future(s) are there, we just can’t do anything about it. There’s no way to extract useful info about the future.

The part that blows my mind is that it appears that we can change reality, and it might be more that we can alter our trajectory through multiple actualized realities.
If you hold that you can’t actually exceed the speed of light, those other realities do exist, that’s the only way opening one of those boxes can change something out of the light cone.
There have been actual experiments that show this could be what is happening at the quantum level, every possibility does exist.
lol, in one of those Mann’s team didn’t didn’t get a Nobel prize…….

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 11:44 am

Terry, there is no possible manner within General Relativity for “information” to move outside of the mass/energy framework.

Stealey, if you can’t explain it in your own words, then obviously you don’t understand it.

Reply to  Jerzy Strzelecki
August 14, 2015 12:02 pm

Your claim is falsified by the evidence.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 12:37 pm

If you can view the past, then people in that past can view you…in the future.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2015 1:07 pm

Hi Menicholas
Modern telecommunications technology makes it possible for us to view a picture from the past with complete clarity. It should be recognized that in the transmission of this picture information is lost. The clarity is a consequence from use by telecommunications engineers of error correcting codes that make up the lost information. A consequence from use of one of these codes is for more information to be transmitted than is received.
When we try to transmit a picture from the future there is a similar loss of information but without the presence of an error correcting code. Consequently the lost information cannot be regained. Thus though we can view people in our pasts they cannot view us in their futures.

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 1:54 pm

Terry et. al..

I know you boys don’t like Wikipedia, but read this with regards to the xfer of info FLT
(This is getting off-topic. -mod)

Reply to  Jerzy Strzelecki
August 14, 2015 3:57 pm

We were in the midst of a discussion of the implications of relativity theory for the notion that there an anthropogenic “signal” lies buried in the natural variability “noise.” It seems to me that quantum mechanics is an unnecessary and inappropriate distraction from discussion of this topic.
(Thank you. -mod.)

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 1:59 pm

Typo “FTL” Faster Than Light
(Reply: This is an article about the Trenberth paper. Please stay on-topic. -mod.)

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 3:25 pm

“Mr. Strzelecki” (AKA: beckleybud) says:
if you can’t explain it in your own words, then obviously you don’t understand it.
Of course, that’s just silly. It really means that you can’t understand it. You asked for a link to the book — I gave you a link. Then you criticized it without even reading the book. That makes your opinion worthless, no? As I stated before, if you don’t agree with Prof. Greene, go argue with him. He teaches at Harvard.
Why are you being so obnoxious? You started these attacks. I never responded, until you said I was “clueless” — twice. And now you say I obviously don’t understand something. How would you know? Your claimed specialty is Sociology. That isn’t very impressive at a site dedicated to the hard sciences. Now, if you will start being polite, I won’t point out that you lack some very basic understanding of this Trenberth article.
As for the basic question: there are no verifiable, testable measurements quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW), so Trenberth is just doing his usual “say anything” routine. That’s his M.O. His specialty is moving the goal posts. He has even demanded that the Scientific Method must be changed, to where skeptics have the onus of proving that MMGW doesn’t exist! That’s how desperate he is. He wants skeptics to have to prove a negative.
Next, as Richard Courtney tried to explain to you, the climate Null Hypothesis states that if no measurable change to the system is shown to exist, then for all practical purposes there has been no change. And Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation is almost always the right explanation, and that any extraneous variables should be discarded.
The extraneous variable in this case is CO2. Real world observations show conclusively that the predicted fast rise in global T has never happened, therefore the ‘CO2=catastrophic AGW’ conjecture has been falsified. It does not have to be falsified repeatedly. That conjecture is a dead duck. It was wrong.
Nothing is “masking” global warming, as Trenberth asserts. Thousands of well educated scientists have been searching for that hidden global warming for decades, but no one has found it.
So what should we believe? That Trenberth knows it’s there, but he’s not showing us? Or that the ‘dangerous MMGW’ scare has been decisively falsified?

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 4:06 pm

[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]

Jerzy Strzelecki
Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 4:14 pm

[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]

Reply to  Jerzy Strzelecki
August 14, 2015 8:28 pm

Yes, I can explain how information can be moved from the future to the present without a mass transfer or an energy transfer at greater than the speed of light. This can be accomplished through the construction of a decoder of a kind of “message.” This “message” is composed of a sequence of the future outcomes of events. Many such decoders have been built, tested and statistically validated.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 4:41 pm

“Are you confused?”
No. That leaves you.
“appealing to authority?”
Your ‘authority’ is Sociology — an amusing waste of time and .edu resources. It’s easier than Women’s Studies.
“you got to go to journals where real science is done.” heh. Real science? As in As if. Are you unaware unaware of the Climategate revelations exposing the corruption of science in climate journals? If you like, I’ll give you a pointer to some reading materiel. If you read it you will never again accept those “journals” at face value.
“why are you changing the subject?”
The subject is Trenberth. Why are you changing the subject?
Stick to Sociology, Jerzy. The hard sciences are a bit much for you.

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 5:49 pm

And I’ll give you a pointer on how to enable the spell checker in your browser.
I guess a bench technician doesn’t have much experience with publishig in scientific journals

Irony at it’s finest 🙂

Reply to  ferdberple
August 14, 2015 8:30 pm

Hi Mike6500,
Irony at it’s finest 🙂
Amusing catch there, Mike. I was “publishig” everything correctly, with my usual excellent spelling. And that, on top of his “FLT” typo above.
JS is just ‘David Socrates‘ in his newest sockpuppet persona. Pay him no mind. ☺

Steve Garcia
Reply to  ferdberple
August 16, 2015 4:57 pm

August 14, 2015 at 3:25 pm: “How would you know? Your claimed specialty is Sociology. That isn’t very impressive at a site dedicated to the hard sciences.
I find that an astounding claim, that climatology, with all its chaotic systems and adjusted data and proxies, could be claiming to be a hard science. A hard science is where a measurement is itself, without any interpretation or coloring or translation, and where input A gives the same result B, time after time. As such climatology is much more like sociology than it is like physics or chemistry. If it wasn’t so soft, then why is so much of it so iffy and vague and so massively up to individual interpretation? It’s more like reading tea leaves than hard science.
Climatology may some day BE a hard science, but with all of the unknowns, that day is certainly not this day.

Don B
August 13, 2015 3:20 pm

A year ago, Andy Revkin in the NY Times:
“There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process — including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion.”
He quotes Dr. Tung as saying once the Atlantic ocean effects are removed, the background warming is 0.08C per decade. Not much to be divided among PDO cycles, solar effects and AGW.

Reply to  Don B
August 14, 2015 12:40 pm

Dr. Tung?
Hey, what ever happened in the final episode? I missed it.

August 13, 2015 3:22 pm

I’m lost. So the warming is so small that our instruments that measure to a NOAA precision of .0000001 degree over the entire planet can get masked out by natural variation, but all of the Earth’s animals are going extinct because they can’t handle the warming. So why are animals so much more sensitive? You’d think living through ice ages that they’d be better adapted.
Then again this might all be about scare tactics for an agenda based ideology and not about science. What does the raw data say again?

Reply to  Jared
August 13, 2015 5:32 pm

You’re got to really wonder about all the plants and animals that they’ve claimed are in danger over the past 20 years….when the temperature didn’t change

Reply to  Latitude
August 14, 2015 6:49 am

97% of all statisticians agree, you can prove anything with statistics.

Reply to  Jared
August 13, 2015 6:11 pm

” What does the raw data say again?”
The raw data shows relatively large swings regionally, and no real discernable trend.

August 13, 2015 3:26 pm

After Trenberth’s 50th or so failed prediction I suppose some people will stop listening to him. What is he up to now, 47?

Reply to  willnitschke
August 14, 2015 6:54 am

Trendberth relies on the Pratfall Effect. He has made so many mistake people cannot help but like him because he makes everyone else look good in comparison. It is like taking along an ugly friend when you go out to the bar. They make you look good.
Pratfall effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In social psychology, the pratfall effect is the tendency for attractiveness to increase or decrease after an individual makes a mistake, depending on the individual’s perceived competence, or ability to perform well in a general sense. A perceived competent individual would be, on average, more likable after committing a blunder, while the opposite would occur if a perceived average person makes a mistake.

August 13, 2015 3:39 pm

I went to a quiz once, and the question we got stuck on was the capital of Mongolia. We had a dumbass on the team who offered Dili, Bamako, Juba, Beijing, UlanBataar, Kigali
When the answer came – ‘UlanBataar’ , she said – ‘Exactly what I said’
And to be honest, she was 100% right, but 100% useless
Her name was not Trenberth, by the way

Reply to  EternalOptimist
August 13, 2015 3:57 pm

Great story EO it really isn’t all that uncommon for a certain kind of character to list a series of possible solutions and once they see which way the wind is blowing step up front to carry the flag!

August 13, 2015 3:44 pm

Apparently “climate variation” can only subtract from the warming signal, it can never add to it.

August 13, 2015 3:52 pm

if PDO and ENSO is due to changes in the prevalent wind direction or pressure gradient difference between eastern and western Pacific that moves a few feet of surface water (which is enough to alter average surface temperatures perceptibly) how does this “results in more sequestration of heat in the deep ocean “? what is his definition of deep?

August 13, 2015 3:53 pm

It’s truly amazing that the warmist scientists can’t admit the theory of CAGW may be wrong or admit that climate sensitivity is lower than is believed at 3 degrees C for doubling CO2

August 13, 2015 3:54 pm

“Internal variability masks climate warming trends.” Well yeah, of course it does, which falsifies the whole global warming myth.
If something can’t be detected, it doesn’t exist.

August 13, 2015 3:55 pm

Or even discuss it as a possible cause of the hiatus

August 13, 2015 3:58 pm

Dr. Trenberth
You must be aware that the internal variability has been masking rise in temperatures long before captain James Cook landed in New Zealand.
Regrettable thing about your pronouncements is that the same internal variability may be in not so distant future masking just as steep decline in the temperatures.
Prosperous and well to do including most of readers here would cope with no difficulty, but many, many more may experience hardships and fuel poverty.
Scientists of your calibre should be not only telling us why they think they are right, but even more importantly warning us why they may be wrong.

August 13, 2015 4:13 pm

these twit have made so many fibs (many of which cannot be described as little or harmless) that they don’t even know which are important to their case anymore, and they don’t even bother to think it through before spouting new ones. The admission of “internal natural variability” completely undermines the case for C-AGW.
The direct effect of CO2 was known to be too weak to have significant impact, let alone the “C” in C-AGW.
So they invented the claim of strong positive feedback. In order for positive feedback to amplify the effect of CO2 but not “natural variability” it is necessary for their to be no natural variability.
This is why the MWP had to be removed, hence the importance of the HS paper.

john robertson
August 13, 2015 4:21 pm

What do you know, Kevin has begun to understand what the Late John Daley told his cliche over a decade ago.
Truly the definition of expert in Climatology appears to be; Knowing less and less about everything.

john robertson
August 13, 2015 4:22 pm

Sorry Kevins little cliche, Team IPCC ™

A Crooks
August 13, 2015 4:27 pm

Without reading any of what Trenberth has said (why would you?) I think I might actually agree with him in this case. Looking critically at the Satelite data, all I can see is the 60 year cycle and a 7 and a half year cycle both of which have such large amplitudes, the long term trends (out of the Ice Age) are just not detectable. The trend out of the Little Ice Age sits at .06 degrees C per decade – and is swamped by the plus or minus .4 degree C “noise” of the shorter wave length oscillations.
I dont think anyone could make a statistically significant estimation of a long-term trend out of the Satelite data that we have as yet.

Reply to  A Crooks
August 13, 2015 4:34 pm

A Crooks:
However, control over the climate cannot be achieved through discrimination of the signal from the noise the signal power and noise power both being nil. See my response to phaedo for justification.

Reply to  A Crooks
August 15, 2015 11:07 am

The satellite data is only 30 years old. I’d be hesitant about declaring any signal much longer than 10 to 15 years in it. We need about 100 more years of data before we can use it to prove a 60 year signal.

Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2015 2:12 pm

You are repeating the error of IPCC climatologists when they refer to an anthropogenic “signal” and natural variation “noisc.” For use in controlling the climate this “signal” would have to travel at greater than light speed but under relativity theory this it cannot do.

August 13, 2015 4:38 pm

Dr. Trenberth obviously did not receive the memo from NOAA stating that the Pause/Hiatus in global warming does not exist. When are all the nice climate scientists going to actually have a consensus as to what is really happening with the global climate?

August 13, 2015 5:07 pm

I remember telling young tax lawyers to never pretend that you know something. “I don’t know” is better than being completely wrong.
Too many warmists have never learned that.

August 13, 2015 5:18 pm

Enough arm waving to generate lift.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Max Photon
August 13, 2015 6:07 pm

Enough to lift his sagging assumptions?

Joel O'Bryan
August 13, 2015 5:20 pm

Trenberth writes:

” Karl et al. recently argued that there has been no slowdown in the rise of GMST andhence no hiatus (3). The authors compared slightly revised and improved GMST estimates after 2000 with the 1950–1999 period, concluding that there was hardly any change in the rate of increase. Their start date of 1950 is problematic, however. An earlier hiatus, which some now call the big hiatus, lasted from about 1943 to 1975 (see the figure); including the 1950–1975 period thus artificially lowers the rate of increase for the 1950–1999 comparison interval. The perception of whether or not there was a hiatus depends on how the temperature record is partitioned.
Another reason to think there had been a hiatus in the rise of GMST comes from comparing model expectations and observations. Human activities are causing increases in heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (4). These increases are expected to cause rising atmospheric temperatures. Atmospheric aerosols, mostly from fossil fuel combustion, are expected to reduce this rise to some extent. The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 13, 2015 5:48 pm

Trenberth’s reference 19. Data from, downloaded on 30 June 2015.

William Astley
August 13, 2015 5:27 pm

The hiatus in warming will soon be over. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. The solar cycle has been interrupted.
There is a forcing change due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 however that forcing change is almost completely offset by the increase in convection.
Hot air rises which causes colder air to fall. An increase in greenhouse gases causes an increase in convection. The so called no ‘feedback’ calculation for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 made two incorrect assumptions:
1) It froze the lapse rate rather than increased lapse rate and
2) it did not take into account the fact the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap (the overlap and the fact that 70% of the planet is covered by water greatly reduces the amount of warming in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropical region.)
correcting either of the above incorrect assumptions reduces the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to from 1.2C no feedbacks to 0.1C to 0.2C no feedbacks. 0.1C to 0.2C is insufficient to cause any feedback increase so the no feedback warming is the ballpark the same as the feedback calculation.
There is greenhouse gas warming due to atmospheric CO2, however, the greenhouse effect saturates due to the increased lapse rate and due the over lap of the absorption spectrum of water and CO2. This explains why there are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice verse.

Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

4. Conclusions
In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].
In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen which discuss the lapse rate ‘fudge’. Come on man. Hansen froze the lapse rate to create any significant warming.

This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…
That’s trivial. You just put in…
… a lapse rate…
Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers (William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans). So you try to pick something that has some physical justification (William: You pick what is necessary to create CAGW, the scam fails when the planet abruptly cools due to the abrupt solar change). But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with an atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( a factor of four). The 1.1 watts/meter^2 increase in forcing will result in surface warming of ball park 0.1C to 0.2C which is so small, the no feedback case is the same as with feedback case.
Check out figure 2 in this paper.

Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  William Astley
August 14, 2015 7:30 am

As far as I know the first person to point out the effect of enhanced convection in causing the entrainment of colder air into descending columns so as to offset any CO2 surface warming beneath ascending columns was me, here:
That is a basic principle of meteorology but I had never previously seen it applied to the AGW debate.
A more detailed version showing more clearly what happens at tropopause and surface is in hand.
The critical insights were to separate the effects of CO2 into equal and opposite thermal effects in ascending and descending columns and into equal and opposite effects on the lapse rate slopes above and below the point of hydrostatic balance.
By doing that one can explain how the thermal consequence of radiative capability within an atmosphere can be negated by convective adjustments without altering average surface temperature.

William Astley
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
August 15, 2015 1:35 am

It is unbelievable that countries are being forced to spend trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work (do not significantly reduce the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted if the CO2 input to build the green scams and the reduce grid efficiency due to reduction in combined cycle natural gas power (combined cycle power plants are 20% more efficient than single cycle power plants but require 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off/and so on and more cycling of single cycle power plants is included) when it is obvious that there is no CAGW problem to solve, the entire premise scientific premise for CO2 is incorrect.
1) The canonical Hansen and friends no feedback forcing calculation assumes/assumed there is no increase in lapse rate due to the increase in CO2 for the double atmospheric CO2 1-dimensional calculation. That assumption is ridiculous, physically impossible. There must be an increase in lapse rate.
2) The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption was purposely neglected in most studies (including the canonical Hansen and friends no feedback CO2 1-dimensional calculations) affects of increased CO2. Ignoring the overlap of absorption of water and CO2 is also ridiculous, an obvious scam to create any significant warming.
I and many, many others had assumed that there is some warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the hiatus in warming was due to planet resisting rather than amplifying forcing changes by an increase in cloud cover in the tropical region.
The corollary to what appears to be a physical fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 could not and did not cause, the warming in the last 150 years, is that solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover and cloud properties caused the warming.
If the solar cycle caused the warming in the last 150 years, the warming can very, very, rapidly be reversed.
Big surprise, there is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlates with solar cycle changes. There is now in your face observational evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted. Bingo, what is coming next is significant in your face cooling.
The cooling has started. Hudson bay sea ice this summer has the highest in 20 years. Canadian ice breakers were required to clear a path for commercial shipments of grain out of the Hudson Bay. Greenland Ice sheet seasonal melting was two months late and has now ended. There is a 200 Gt increase in mass on the Greenland Ice sheet. Arctic multiyear ice has increased 30%. The Arctic is cooling.
What is holding back the cooling are coronal holes on the sun.
The coronal holes create persistent regular solar wind bursts which creates a charge imbalance in the ionosphere which in turn causes there to be an electric current movement in the atmosphere which removes cloud forming ions. There has recently been a string of coronal holes on the sun. The electroscavening effect explains why even though GCR is the highest ever recorded at this point in the solar cycle (GCR, galactic cosmic rays, mostly high speed protons are blocked/defected by the solar heliosphere. The solar heliosphere’s extent and amount of magnetic flux is dependent on the strength of the solar cycle. The high speed protons strike the earth’s atmosphere creating cloud forming ions.)
The coronal holes however are visibly now starting to shrink and/or move up to high latitude regions of the sun where they no longer affect the earth.
There is a second more complicate mechanism that is inhibiting cooling which is the reason for the persistent high pressure region of the coast of North America. That is a temporary effect.
It appears the question is not if the planet will cool but rather when the cooling will become so obvious that there will be a public and media response (Panic. How is it possible for there to be so much cooling? We have been told over and over that a gas that is necessary for life on this planet and is injected into commercial greenhouses to increase yield and to reduce growing must be stopped to protect against dangerous warming) which will force there to be an official response from the cult of CAGW scientists.

Gary Pearse
August 13, 2015 5:29 pm

The climate consensus gave ENSO and other oscillations no consideration before the pause. They were forced to consider natural variations when the protracted pause started whittling away at CO2 global warming theory. Does this guy not understand that the longer the pause lasts, the smaller climate sensitivity has to be? The mental stress caused by the pause sent the fringe with scruples in clinical depression (classic psychological D’Nilef was displayed when they said the depression was because no one would listen and they had devoted a life time watching the disaster coming. The mind is a wonderful thing. It is tuned to recognize reality. If we don’t accept reality, it makes us sick).
Karl new that the pause was going to bring the whole fantasy house of cards down so, holding his nose and mindful that with climategate, everyone just pretended it didn’t really show anything about them and they brazened it through, he egregiously doctored the record out of a pause. His supporters never even blinked – they didn’t want the pause either – it’s already old hat.
Trenberth hasn’t shown himself to be brilliant but he’s not stupid. He’s sliding over slowly, retarded by fear of reprisals from the team. Even criticizing Karl for what he did moves him to the right. Don’t forget he was ‘heard’ in the climategate emails saying it was a travesty that they could show no warming for 10 years or so. He therefore is very cognizant of what is happening to the theory – he couldn’t let go for a while but watch! If the cooling exacerbates over many more years (we may get a blip with the weird El Nino but..) he will also let go of the rapid warming of the 90s as all CO2. His present argument doesn’t make sense if he doesn’t also see that natural variation bumped up those temperatures, too. He will and then he becomes a sceptic. He will become an evangelist for skepticism when he finally lets go enough.
He may know already, (although I don’t thinks so), like these “new” oscillation phenomena he’s “discovered”, that negative feedback is a prominent feature in virtually all systems and this would have been the first consideration of a real scientist of climate or an engineer. Negative feedbacks are common, positive not so much! Newtonian laws of motion, back EMF in electric motors, turbulence in stream flow that retards the flow (indeed I think one day we will define this as a classic negative feed back along with all of chaotic systems), Le Chatelier principle in chemistry that says: if you perturb chemical equilibrium by changing a component (temperature, pressure, concentration…) the equilibrium will move in the direction to counteract the change (partially), feedback in sound systems, friction, the effect of prices on economic equilibrium, the list is almost endless.

August 13, 2015 5:31 pm

A hypothesis is based on observations. This seems to be more along the lines of a “guess.”

Reply to  ScienceABC123
August 15, 2015 11:20 am

A person observes something happening. He comes up with a theory of what caused the thing observed. That is he says, I think this is why it happened. At times that “think” is accompanied by lots of mathematics and discussions of known physics, but it is still a guess. Which is why we continue to call it a theory until such time as experimentation and observation either prove or disprove the “guess”.

August 13, 2015 5:31 pm

Trenberth has yet to figure out that it’s well-nigh impossible to “hide” heat in the deeper ocean. Outside of marginal seas, where natural salinity variations may exert a stronger effect upon the density of seawater, it’s higher temperature that result in lower density; through the action of buoyancy forces, the warmest waters are invariably in the surface layer above the thermocline.

August 13, 2015 5:49 pm

All this is very sinister. Each time they come up with a new excuse the are borrowing probably 3-5 years time and keeping the AGW balls in the air so that there are still those to be conned. Pope Frank being one of the latest marks of the climate carpetbaggers.

August 13, 2015 6:17 pm

We have to have planning to adapt for something which has always occurred?

NW sage
August 13, 2015 6:33 pm

Trenberth’s bit makes it obvious — The variability of the various climate parameters (all of them) obscures the ability to measure or perceive the change [which is what he said]. So, even if there IS climate change – either warming or cooling – it is impossible to measure any human caused component or to measure any change in that component as a result of changes in human efforts. Therefore any benefits of those efforts cannot, by definition, be determined. That being so, any and all costs, small or large, of those attempts cannot be justified. QED

August 13, 2015 7:25 pm

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

SKS helpfully translates to the same thing.

Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!

Reed Coray
Reply to  clipe
August 13, 2015 9:21 pm

It’s both a “travesty” and unsettled science.

Reply to  clipe
August 13, 2015 9:40 pm

” But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. ”
More nonsense (does that surprise anyone )
I’ve been showing regional swings in minimum temp for a few years now. The derivative of daily temp by area shows quite distinctly there is no trend in temperature.

August 13, 2015 7:26 pm

If a climate model fails in the middle of the da’hood, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 13, 2015 8:03 pm

No, no, no, The correct question is; “If a husband speaks and his wife is not around to hear him, is he still wrong ????”

Reply to  KevinK
August 13, 2015 8:10 pm

If a man says something in a forest and there’s no women around to hear him…Is he still wrong?

Reply to  KevinK
August 14, 2015 1:08 pm

Is the Pope catholic?
(Used to be this was a rhetorical question. Now, not so much.)

August 13, 2015 8:14 pm

there’s [there are]

August 13, 2015 8:14 pm

“Trenberth says ‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’”
Or possibly, Internal climate variability create climate-warming trends.

August 13, 2015 8:17 pm

Here is the journal reference:
Science 14 August 2015:
Vol. 349 no. 6249 pp. 691-692
Has there been a hiatus?
Kevin E. Trenberth | 0 Comments
Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends
They were accepting comments which are peer reviewed so I added one which should show up once they have looked it over.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
August 13, 2015 11:58 pm

I logged in on my tablet to AAAS and didn’t see the normal comments link. Maybe I need to use my desktop computer Friday AM?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 14, 2015 6:54 am

You have to click on “full text” and then go to the bottom end where the references are. At the end of the references there is an invitation to submit a comment.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
August 16, 2015 11:27 am

Like I said, I submitted my comment to Science and was surprised by their quick turnaround time – only two days. Since I did not write one for WUWT I am encclosing a copy of it here, with credit to Science Magazine.
Science 14 August 2015:
Vol. 349 no. 6249 pp. 691-692
“Has there been a hiatus?”
by Kevin E. Trenberth
Comment by Arno Arrak
The answer to the question “Has there been a hiatus?” is yes. And not just one but two of them. The current one started with the twenty-first century. The 1998 super El Nino was followed by a short step warming in 1999. In only three years it raised global temperature by one third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. From 2002 on until the present day a hiatus has existed. Contrary to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, during a hiatus carbon dioxide increases while temperature does not. This invalidates the Arrhenius theory and it belongs in the waste basket of history. The only greenhouse theory capable of accurately predicting global temperature today is MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It has been available since 2007 but it has been blacklisted because of what it predicts, namely today’s climate. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. This value comes from analysis of radiosonde data. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as Arrhenius says. But as soon as this happens water vapor starts to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but reduction of water vapor has reduced atmospheric absorption so much that no Arrhenius warming is possible. As a result, we observe exactly what is happening now. The second hiatus I mentioned existed in the eighties and nineties. The reason you don’t see it in official temperature curves is that it has been over-written by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” The organizations that co-operated in this criminal act are HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC. I discovered that while doing research for my book “What Warming?” in 2008. Using satellite data, the hiatus is shown as figure 15 in my book. It lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. The existence of two hiatuses makes it almost impossible to argue that hiatuses do not exist. The two together block any greenhouse warming from 80 percent of the time since 1979, the starting date of the satellite era. The remaining 20 percent is taken up by the super El Nino pf 1998 and the step warming of 1999. These are not greenhouse features either and jointly they declare that the satellite era is greenhouse free. Trenberth’s figures are all wrong and still promulgate the false warming five years after I pointed it out.
Submitted on Thu, 08/13/2015 – 23:04
Notes. Science Magazine limits the size f comments to 2500 characters. I had to do pruning to fit it in this limit and ended up with 2497 characters. Considerable background had to be left out.

August 13, 2015 9:26 pm

This natural climate variability thingy is worse than we thought and we’ll need lots more grants to study it’s effects on climate change.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 13, 2015 9:28 pm

That means the warmist groups agree the principle player is the natural variability in temperature. To this added the localized trend in temperature due to urban-heat-island effect and deforestation/mining activities effect. Because of this, the balloon data and satellite data showed a little increase in globaltemperature of about 0.25 oC since 1951 and of which around half is the contribution of global warming component [as per AR5 of IPCC]. Then, why reports and scientific articles are released every now and then on the impact of global warming on ice melt, sea level rise, extreme weather events. All these have a natural variability– the natural variability are not the same over different Oceans. So Arctic ice melt follow the opposite pattern of Antarctica ice melt and thus other factors associated with them. There is a need first to separate natural variability factor as it plays main role on weather systems globally.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

August 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Trenberth says ‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’

That’s pretty much what many of us have been saying all along. The problem came in when moronic activists oversold MBH98/99, which claimed that natural variability was less than previously thought. Since Moberg 2005, it’s pretty much been accepted that MBH98/99 was wrong on this point (making their claim of “unprecedented warming” meaningless.
Anyway, many of us (certainly myself) say you need 30+ year trends to robustly estimate the secular trend associated with CO2 forcings.
IMO, it’s not really an excuse if it was expected, even Trenberth were busy at the time overselling the “unstoppable global warming”.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Carrick
August 14, 2015 2:54 pm

It might make sense Carrick to show people a couple things.
A) assume some natural cycle
B) Assume some linear trend of AGW.
Show people in a notional way how the amplitude and phase of the natural cycle
and the magnitude of the trend influence the “break out” period, the period of data that is required for the AGW trend to be detectable .
My sense was Santer was wrong by half when he pegged it at 17 years..

David Chappell
August 13, 2015 10:15 pm

Our Kev must be right, he’s a Nobel Laureate don’t you know!
“Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007”
from his cv at

Eugene WR Gallun
August 13, 2015 10:23 pm

If people will remember it was always skeptics who have talked about natural variation. The hotheads denied it. Mann’s hockey stick was designed to show that natural variation did not exist therefore all heat rise in the 20th century was man made. Now suddenly with the pause the hotheads are mouthing off about natural variation if it were always their cause.
To quote Bugs Bunny — What a bunch of maroons!
So has Trenberth dropped his idea that the missing heat teleports into the ocean deeps?
Eugene WR Gallun

Stephen Wilde
August 13, 2015 11:35 pm

Told you so:
“Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.”
Published by Stephen Wilde May 21, 2008

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
August 14, 2015 1:35 am

Absolutely right, but anyone with an objective mind could reach that conclusion. The problem is alarmists / advocates / activists / £beneficiaries are not objective.

August 13, 2015 11:45 pm

A temperature rise is man’s interference,
But a cooling trend is a natural occurrence!
So if things don’t go exactly according to plan
It must be Mother Nature interfering with man?
Now think about what I have just said,
Does it smell of the BS were being fed?
Policy driven science is not real science at all
Yet for the hocus pocus we continue to fall.

Non Nomen
August 14, 2015 12:05 am

Fake, or your career is at stake.
If you lie, stick to it.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Non Nomen
August 14, 2015 5:08 am

Non Nomen
“Fake, or your career is at stake
If you lie, stick to it.”
In prison nobody admits they did it. Both climatology and our prisons are filled with innocent people.
Eugene WR Gallun

Non Nomen
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
August 14, 2015 5:52 am


Non Nomen
August 14, 2015 12:10 am

‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’

That means nature as a whole overrules mankind as a part of it. AGW debunked again.

August 14, 2015 12:27 am

Earlier in this thread, commenters have noted that Iceland and New England are coldest for many years. Its true also of Ireland, Scotland as well as Finland.

August 14, 2015 1:28 am

Trenberth’s assertion is pretty much what sceptics have been saying right from the start – that any man-made influence (such as it may be) is just noise, overwhelmed within a much stronger natural system.
When we say it, it’s discredited, yet when ‘climate scientist’ Trenberth utters the immortal words it’s like Moses has sent down tablets of stone from Mount Olympus. ‘Catastrophic’ AGW theory really is a completely busted flush.

August 14, 2015 1:34 am

They invented this word “variability” in order to mask their ignorance before the huge complexity of a system (the climate) which they boast to know with accuracy in its smallest details

Stephen Richards
August 14, 2015 1:37 am

The problem for the people of this planet is that climate science stupidity is directly proportional to our politicians greed and gullibility

Reply to  Stephen Richards
August 14, 2015 1:51 am

or the BBC’s Stephen . . . . see below.

August 14, 2015 1:48 am

I’ve posted this in ‘Tips and Notes’ in case no one picks up on it . . . .
It’s Friday morning, 14th August (9:50am UK) and one of todays BBC News features is “Could the smell of the sea help cool a warming planet?”.
This extraordinary article reckons that dimethyl sulfide (a pongy gas produced by bacteria feasting on phytoplankton) is changed chemically to sulphate, which in turn causes brighter white fluffy clouds to form and reflect more sunlight back in to space – which “makes a difference to global warming”.
Clearly, the BBC are becoming more desperate each day to explain why it’s not getting hotter after all. Perhaps they think the bracing smell of the sea is something we never had 100 years ago!

August 14, 2015 3:33 am

Never play poker with Trenberth and ‘the Team’ given their luck , and how else can you explain how Internal climate variability perfectly masks climate-warming trends but of course could never be the actual reason for any warming , so you would lose your shirt

August 14, 2015 4:53 am

Does Dr. Trenberth remember his proposal, that the temperature increase from 1976 onward occured stepwise through the Pacific dekadal shift 1976, and the El Nino Events 1986-89 and 1997/98. Of course these are natural events and having nothing to do with CO2. He has even Joe Romm convinced of that.

August 14, 2015 5:53 am

So, let me see if I have this straight. The data shows no warming or that the warming is paused. I don’t like the term “pause”, which seems to concede the point that the climate is warming but is just interrupted. Nevertheless, the data shows no warming, but the climate IS warming. You just can’t see it because of the data. So by definition……..there is no warming?….according to the data?….but it is warming?…because it contradicts the data….So confusing.

Reply to  Mike
August 14, 2015 5:57 am

this is the problem/conundrum with “scientists” that make conclusions first and then try and explain any data set to support their predetermined conclusion. You just can’t make this stuff up.

August 14, 2015 6:06 am

Trenberth says
“The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.
GMST varies from year to year (see the figure) and from decade to decade, largely as a result of internal natural variability. Temperatures have mostly increased since about 1920 and the recent rate is not out of step with the 1950–1999 rate (3), but there are two intervals with much lower rates of increase. Only the most recent of these two hiatuses has occurred in the presence of fast-increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. It is thus important to understand its origins and whether or not it indeed indicates a flaw in model projections and thus in climate change theory. ”
Amazingly the establishment is beginning to face up to the idea that their climate theories may be wrong and that maybe another approach is needed.
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
The entire UNFCCC circus and the underlying CAGW meme have no basis in empirical science and should be abandoned.

August 14, 2015 6:45 am

Kudos to Trenberth for implicitly calling into question the Karl et al study saying that there is no “hiatus” in the temperature record.
I happen to agree with Trenberth that natural variability is behind the hiatus, and I also have thought that the next big El Nino will likely cause the first significant increase in temps since 1998. That is simply from observing what happened the last time we got a big El Nino. If there ISN’T a big temp increase this year or next, even with a big El Nino, that will be a REAL headline.
What Trenberth, and reporters, do NOT say is that the hiatus called into question the climate sensitivity of CO2 which is in the models. The temperature increases in the models have all been running way too high, relative to the reality of the hiatus. As WUWT and Climate Etc. and Andy Revkin have reported, there are close to two dozen relatively new studies showing that the temp increases from a doubling of CO2 are likely to be about 1.7 to 2.0 degrees, not the 3 degrees in the models. That is a very big finding — even if some readers of WUWT persist in thinking that CO2 doesn’t warm the climate at all.
Until Trenberth and the reporters come to terms with the lessened temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2, they are still not coming clean.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  John
August 14, 2015 11:10 am

“If there ISN’T a big temp increase this year or next, even with a big El Nino, that will be a REAL headline”
I think that is what is going to happen. The atmospheric response to the current very strong El Nino is going to be much more muted than the 1998 response, though there may be some short term warming.

Reply to  John
August 16, 2015 6:43 pm

John August 14, 2015 at 6:45 am says:
“…I happen to agree with Trenberth that natural variability is behind the hiatus, and I also have thought that the next big El Nino will likely cause the first significant increase in temps since 1998.”
First, what do you mean with this nebulous “natural” variability? If you can’t describe it or explain it just admit that you simply don’t know instead of inventing mysterious forces. Trenberth certainly does not know either and invoking an in-explainable mysterious force entity like he does is simply not science. As to your opinion of El Nino, you simply don’t know what it is. It is a resonant oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the equatorial Pacific. Read pages 23 to 29 in my book to fill yourself in about the rest. But the 1998 super El Nino was an exception that may happen perhaps once a century. It was not part of this oscillation but appeared as a singleton and carried much more warm water than was available to ENSO at the time. I do not expect anything like that anytime soon. ENSO seems to have settled down to a residual oscillation like we saw for the first seven years of this century and it is hard to say how long it will last. Those first seven years (twenty-first century high) were punctuated by the 2008 La Nina and 2010 El Nino, after which the residual activity resumed. As to the hiatus, it is not impossible that it may well be the normal resting state of global temperatures if you consider that so far 80 percent of the satellite era has already been involved.

August 14, 2015 7:15 am

It is not possible to make an estimate of ECS until we have a reasonably good empirically based estimate of the timing and amplitude of the natural quasi- periodicities e.g. the 60 year and quasi-millennial periodicity so obvious in the temperature records and reconstructions.
All the bottom up numerical climate models are useless both because they are inherently incomputable and also because we simply do not understand well enough the physics involved in the various processes and we cannot initialize the various parameters with a grid that is of small enough size and sufficiently precise.
Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 it concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
The successive uncertainty estimates in the successive “Summary for Policymakers” take no account of the structural uncertainties in the models and almost the entire the range of model outputs could well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case.
Readers should note that the IPCC itself has now even given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
but paradoxically they still claim that we can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be crazy.
For a complete discussion of the inutility of the GCMs in forecasting anything or estimating ECS see Section 1 at

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
August 17, 2015 10:01 pm

Dr. Page:
All the information is nice and very informative. I do research on the climate in the same direction, involving the resonance of long baroclinic waves. What I call the gyral waves help explain the variation in the effectiveness of forcing by the solar and orbital cycles, involving the extension of the polar caps.
Gyral resonance, which might seem very conceptual or pure intellectual speculation becomes concrete when looking at paleoclimate. It appears relevant as the missing link to explain climate variability and its drivers, providing a physical basis for a resonant phenomenon that many researchers have foreseen for a long time. Among other things it explains how the effectiveness of solar and orbital forcing could vary by a factor of 5 during glacial-interglacial periods, as well as the causes of global warming that prevailed during the second half of the 20th century, which reports a slow cooling that begin to be observed.

Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2015 7:52 am

Not unlike Prego, the Warming is “in there”. The climate kooks cooks “scientists” have carefully cooked it in, so not to worry. After all, they are “professionals”. Warming: “It’s in there”.

Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2015 8:18 am

I know what you’re thinking; “But, they keep changing the recipe!”
No problem. It is then the “New and improved!” version, now with extra sauce certainty.

August 14, 2015 9:36 am

before 1950, Mother Nature was in control.
After 1950, man took control of the climate.
In 2015, once again, Mother Nature is in control.
They required the argument that mankind was in control of the climate in order to argue that all the warming was caused by mankind.
Now that the warming has stopped, suddenly, Mother Nature is at work and is in control, to be blamed for the lack of warming.

August 14, 2015 10:32 am

Dr. Trendberth needs to see a climate variability counselor and talk out his paranoia over hidden warming.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
August 14, 2015 10:33 am

“I see masks… everywhere… they talk to me…

August 14, 2015 6:17 pm

Perhaps it was that internal variable thing which caused the warming between the 1970s and 1998?

August 14, 2015 6:40 pm

Yah, the climate has changed almost consistently for millions of years without any help from humanity,
but now, a changing climate is only because of human CO2 emissions?
Wazzup wid dat?

Pamela Gray
August 15, 2015 9:00 am

Trenberth needs to do some math to make sense of a pause, a rise, or a fall in mean global temperature. If you consider all CO2, or even just the increase, as the signal for anthropogenic warming, you make an obvious error. Why? Hell it isn’t even being accurately measured so we don’t know if it is capable of changing weather and by averaging, climate.
Given that CO2, WE THINK, contributes about 16% of total W/m2 of downwelling LW radiation (water vapor being the larger source), one must estimate the CO2 from human growth activity. In addition, one must translate THAT source of warming into W/m2, and somehow trace its human signal of warming, untraceable from other sources of warming in our current measuring systems, through a very noisy measurement system and data set. As a warning, we can’t even model simple dynamics on Mars, let alone Earth
Just for starters, here are some algorithms one could use WITH CAUTION.
Wicked problem with no easy answers, but this much I know, we aren’t talking about catastrophe here. There just isn’t enough TRACEABLE anthropogenic sourced W/m2 energy to force an already energy eating global climate regime to shift to something else. Period and case closed.
Trenberth is either talking through his hat, or truly is a fool idiot who thinks he’s a genius.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
August 16, 2015 5:42 pm

Pamela – I second your opinion of Trenberth. Add to the list of his misdeeds using falsified global temperatures to support erroneous conclusions as described in my comment.

August 15, 2015 7:47 pm

How come the IPCC’s “gold standard in climate science” – you know… the settled science that we have been told so much about – never predicted or even considered all these excuses we are now hearing about the reason for the flat global average temperature anomaly trend?
More interestingly, considering these alarmists insist catastrophic man-made global warming is happening, why are they coming up with excuses for why it is not actually happening? Are they just dumb?

August 15, 2015 8:07 pm

In case you haven’t found it yet, the Trenberth article you’re looking for is here:

John W. Garrett
Reply to  jhubermn
August 18, 2015 12:33 pm

Thank you !!!

PeterB in Indianapolis
August 17, 2015 4:55 am

As I have said for many, many years now: If “internal climate variability” can “mask” climate warming trends, then there is absolutely no way at all that human-emitted CO2 can be the dominant climate driver, because clearly, other drivers are far stronger and can completely overwhelm any effect of human-emitted CO2. This tempest in a teacup of CAGW should have been abandoned as nonsense a long time ago.

Reply to  PeterB in Indianapolis
August 17, 2015 8:36 am

PeterB in Indianapolis:
The argument of the global warming climatologists is that natural climate variability “noise” masks an anthropogenic “signal.” The “noise” can be reduced to an arbitrarily low level through signal averaging without reducing the level of the “signal.” Thus, the ratio of the signal power to the noise power can be increased to an arbitrarily high level by averaging the signal plus noise over a sufficiently long period of time.
Under this argument, the level of the noise vary inversely with the averaging period. Your argument assumes the level of the noise to be constant thus being inconsistent with their argument.
If the purpose of their research were to facilitate communication the climatologists would be right. However, the purpose is to facilitate control. For control there can be no signal nor noise as the speed of the signal plus noise would have to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum to reach the controller in time for control. This is impossible under relativity theory.
For control information has to move to the controller at greater than light speed but this is not possible for a signal plus noise as objects possessing mass-energy would have to be moved. To move at greater than light speed is possible for the conceptual objects that Ronald Christensen calls “orderons” in his book “Order and Time: A General Theory of Prediction.” Orderons are moved by a model that is “scientific” in the sense of being falsifiable, validated and supplying information to a controller in time for control. The GCMs possess neither of these features. As the GCMs are not falsifiable they cannot have been falsified contrary to your assertion.

PeterB in Indianapolis
Reply to  Terry Oldberg
August 17, 2015 9:18 am

I am an environmental chemist and do a lot of work on GCMS instrumentation. In any VALID branch of science, if the “signal” is not distinguishable from the “noise” then the “signal” is below the detection limit of the method in question, and you CANNOT claim that any signal exists with any level of confidence. Therefore, Trenberth is essentially stating that the signal of CO2 induced warming is not distinguishable from “noise” and is therefore insignificant, and unable to be calculated at a reasonable confidence level.

Reply to  PeterB in Indianapolis
August 17, 2015 9:33 am

PeterB in Indianapolis:
Your argument applies the fallacy of argument by assertion: it is asserted that the conclusion of this argument is correct regardless of contradictions to this conclusion.

August 17, 2015 2:32 pm

The ideas go forward. The “Pause” challenges preconceptions about human-induced warming, highlighting the natural climate variability. The PDO is only one aspect of this phenomenon. The observations of the oceans, the reconstruction of solar and orbital forcing as well as the Earth’s global temperature from ice and sediment cores converge in the same direction: the oceans have a major role in climate variability and allow explaining all or part of what we observe while referring to irrefutable physical concepts.
To synthesize:
1) The tropical oceans produce quasi-stationary baroclinic waves (which store or release heat by oscillation of the thermocline) whose mean periods are 1, 4 or 8 years, which resonate with trade winds and ENSO.
2) The western boundary currents (Gulf Stream, Kuroshio …) carry this succession of warm and cold water to the subtropical gyres. Again a resonance phenomenon occurs. But these waves that I call ‘gyral’ in my book and which wind around the 5 subtropical gyres have a remarkable property they do not deaden when the period increases (driver = Earth’s rotation + gravity). They have another property, they resonate with the solar and orbital cycles whose periods coincide with their natural periods. These baroclinic gyral waves store or otherwise release heat resulting from changes in solar irradiance.
3) At mid-latitudes thermal equilibrium occurs between the sea surface temperature anomalies of the subtropical gyres and thermal anomalies of impacted regions of continents (Western Europe is one), due to cyclones and highs (depending on the sign of anomalies, deficit or excess of latent heat withdrawn from the oceans, then restored by condensation of water vapor).
4) Global temperature anomalies are homogenized from the impacted areas, this resulting from the high specific heat of seawater compared to that of continents.
After very complicated models and parameterized so as to explain what is expected of them, simple ideas, even simplistic are not useless…
To know more:

Reply to  Jean-Louis Pinault
August 17, 2015 5:16 pm

Dr. Pinault:
The following might interest you. That ocean waves have frequencies and that waves of long period transfer heat in enormous quantities suggests the possibility of tuning into waves of relatively stable period with a decoder in the hope of predicting climatological outcomes. Circa 1980,Dr. Ronald Christensen and colleagues of his at Entropy Limited tuned into waves of 1 to 3 year periods with an information theoretically optimal decoder. A result was an ability to predict yearly precipitation outcomes in the Sierra Nevada of California with statistical significance 1 to 3 years in advance. Global warming climatologists have thus far spurned the technology that made this possible.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
August 17, 2015 9:07 pm

I think climatologists do not look in the right direction. They are interested in complex and very hypothetical atmospheric phenomena while climate variability is mainly based on oceanic resonance. What clouds the effect of the sun is that the main driver of variability acts through the oceans. The amplitude of the forcing is not proportional to variations in the orbital and solar cycles. Some cycles are discrete (11 years) while others are very active (Gleissberg, orbital cycles), and this without any feedback phenomenon. The coupling takes place mainly when the forcing period is close to that of baroclinic waves (within the bandwidth). On the other hand, the effectiveness of forcing of gyral waves depends on the extension of the polar ice caps. Since the end of the Holocene, the forcing effectiveness is 1.0 °C(W/m2)-1 for the band 96-192 years, and 1.2 °C(W/m2)-1 for the following bands.
Under these conditions the climate should be predictable, knowing the magnitude of past solar cycles (baroclinic waves are in quadrature relative to forcing: there is a substantial phase shift between the forcing and its effect). But all is not so simple because of the resonance to 64 years which is a harmonic of 128 years and which is not due to external forcing. However, we are heading towards a slow cooling.

David Shaw
August 18, 2015 1:23 am

It’s a travesty.