From NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change, according to a new NASA study published Dec. 14 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth. Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales. TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.
There have been many attempts to determine TCR and ECS values based on the history of temperature changes over the last 150 years and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide. As part of that calculation, researchers have relied on simplifying assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than carbon dioxide, such as tiny particles in the atmosphere known as aerosols, for example. It is well known that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet. In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight.
But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study. “The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,” he said, adding that only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.
In a NASA first, researchers at GISS accomplished such a feat as they calculated the temperature impact of each of these variables–greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes–based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations. Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.
The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you’re systematically adding energy for an effect that doesn’t exist you will consistently overestimate future temperatures.
“Estimates of future global temperatures … ” (STOP RIGHT THERE).
Fiddlesticks, bunkum, nonsense: it’s all estimated smoke and mirrors !
Smoke is made of that smokey stuff … oh yes and mirrors are made of …
Mirror stuff?
+1 funny!
Let’s see, double the garbage in, adding lots of gee-whiz “new” stuff like aeorosols (why didn’t we think of that?), ozone, and land-use changes. Wowee, the “new stuff” is pretty potent, way more than expected – it has to be in order to “explain” the “Pause” (or whatever they’re calling it now). Then, take away the new stuff, and boom! You get the “real” forcing power of our CO2, meaning, we’re not only doomed, but double-doomed.
These people have the audacity to call themselves scientists?
One explanation for the late 20th century warming is the reduction of pollutant aerosols due to the Clean air Acts in the US and Europe.
The late 20th Century warming (if manmade) may not be caused by CO2 but rather the result of man cleaning up the atmosphere as from the 1970s onwards.
+1 I’ve been saying the same thing for a couple years without anything but gut feel to back it up.
richard verney wrote, “One explanation for the late 20th century warming is the reduction of pollutant aerosols due to the Clean air Acts in the US and Europe.”
Agreed. Or, at least, a larger portion of the 1980s & 1990s warming than had previously been assumed might be due to the reduction in aerosol pollution, and a smaller portion due to GHGs. More here.
What has been the increase in Chinese and other Asian aerosol pollutants before we make assumptions about how clean the air is now? Given the gross inadequacies of CAGW modeling, I don’t think we need to help find excuses for why their “results” actually came about. I don’t think they did. And the way they keep bastardizing the data it will soon be impossible to say.
“The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,”
So we should look at the regional impacts? For 15 years the US CO2 output has been steady or declining.
Oh! We can discount this because of good mixing – CO2 is still going up.
Well how about sulphate? Except for very major eruptions that load the stratosphere, it is considered more regional. Where are the numbers for the US? Using cleaner fuels and coal and scrubbing power station exhaust I would expect the sulphate to be decreasing dramatically in the US (maybe not in China).
Marvel and Schmidt say the land should be responding faster than the whole hemisphere, so what is happening to US continental temperatures?
Based on this the US region has increasing CO2 and decreasing sulphate and temperatures should be skyrocketing!
Marvel and Schmidt use 1996 to 2005 ?global GISS temperatures?
Why not the best land surface air temperature record in the world (the least fudged)?
If we use the USCRN from 2004 to 2014 the regional temperature has declined (well maybe with error bars it has not changed at all).
This means TCR and ECS are negative (or so close to zero we can’t tell the difference)!
That is the temperature changes we see are all from other (neither CO2 nor sulphate) natural changes.
With a such a scenario in global warming, how groups are prognasticating on sea level rise, ice melt, poverty, etc etc? Also, they are trying to attribute every unusual event to global warming and also, naturally occurring floods, droughts, heat & cold waves, etc. Hypocracy thy name. Unfortunately such people in India [Al Gore & IPCC PR groups] fill the electronic and print media with such stories and sensationalize or glorify the global warming. When we question them, the reply similar to IPCC “when so many people are telling why you deny”. Also, IPCC & Al Gore Noble Prize giving the boost to false propoganda. We must stop such propoganda, otherwise the science of climate change will reach its natural death in no time.
Globally, the temperatures are showing high variation in trend and average anomaly with country to country, region to region within a country, land to ocean, southern hemisphere to northern hemisphere.
Dr. S. Jeevanada Reddy
OK how about some less recent history that is about science and trying to develop understanding:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-annual-holiday-book-show-1.3371470/the-real-planet-of-the-apes-1.3371529
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-annual-holiday-book-show-1.3371470/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs-1.3371510
wickedwenchfan December 20, 2015 at 2:29 pm said “Try applying that maths to Venus. With 2400 times the concentration of CO2 and 230,000 times the mass of CO2 than Earth, the margin of error against reality gets quite hilarious! Feel free to adjust for solar proximity and albedo of course!”
Mathematics and assumptions based on small changes in a minute concentration of CO2 are unlikely to be valid when extended to a massive concentration in another planet’s atmosphere. What we do know is that Venus’s surface temperature is very hot, we believe there is a massive concentration of CO2 in Venus’s atmosphere, and we know that it has a high pressure at the surface. Assuming that Venus was created at the same time as the Earth, and is composed of similar materials, including the same amounts of radioactive particles, then the amount of heat leaking out of Venus’s surface should be a bit less than from Earth due to its smaller mass. But earth has a very thin atmosphere, and the heat is quickly radiated away. Venus has a massive thermal blanket and the heat can only escape by convection. So the bottom of the thermal blanket is hot, there is substantial convection to cool the surface, but because of the pressure change from top to bottom – the same gas laws must apply on Venus as on Earth, the bottom of the atmosphere must remain hot. Margin of error unchanged. Reality very hot! Fact, not hilarious.
Dudley. What complete and utter horse puckey! First let’s point out that Venus is the original “runaway greenhouse effect” scare story that we are supposed to be trying to avoid. The reason the “CO2 sensitivity” maths doesn’t work there has nothing to do with Vulcanism or any other excuse. It doesn’t work because the number isn’t derived from experiment or any form of acceptable science. It is a number pulled out of a warmists rear end for the purpose of making pseudo science here on Earth. If you apply it anywhere else it is exposed for what it is: Garbage!
Secondly, the temperature in Venus’s atmosphere at sea level pressure is 66C or 339K which is EXACTLY what the distance ratio to the sun compared to Earth calculates it should be if no other factors were relevant! Any scientist would realise this observation PROVES that no other factors are relevant! This includes any theory they learnt at school or university. Holding on to any theory after this observation that contradicts it changes the scientist into an “incompetent expert” or dogmatic pseudo science priest!
From here we can use any of the theories about gravitational thermal and pressure gradients to make simple calculations of descending lapse rate to accurately predict the temperature of Venus to its surface. The maths and physics of this method are universal and well established. Most importantly, they WORK! Not just here or on Venus but on every planet in the solar system!
There is no key to predicting global temperatures. All we can predict is that next summer will be warm and the next winter will be cold. How warm the summer will be, or how cold the winter will be depends solely on Mother Nature.
You may find Dan Pangburn’s temperature model of interest.
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/
See Figure 1.1.
Dan has built a simple Earth-temperature (climate?) model that has two significant inputs variables:
– solar intensity (the integral thereof, which makes sense) and
– a ~60year sawtooth (AMO/PDO?)
Normally I would redo Dan’s model from scratch but I have no time.
I suggest others should examine it – it is simple and sensible and does not require any fudging of data (such as the fabricated aerosol data used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975).
I note that Dan’s model predicts imminent global cooling. This agrees with my (our) own opinion, which we first published in 2002. We now expect natural global cooling to be evident after the current El Nino runs its course, by 2020 or probably sooner.
Regards, Allan
Please excuse my ignorance, but I have never seen an estimate for the theoretical maximum temperature that water vapor could possibly warm the atmosphere. Logic tells me that before you reach 100% saturation, there would be increases in rain, snow and clouds that would act to cool the troposphere and become a negative feedback.
I know the “death spiral” of rising temps is fantasy, but what is the worst water vapor can do?
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
I say:
“If you’ve got a systematic OVERestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically OVERestimating what’s going to happen in the future.
FURTHERMORE, HUMANMADE INCREASES IN ATMSPHERIC CO2 WILL NEVER BE the dominant climate driver,”
FINALLY, BOTH TCR AND ECS ARE LESS THAN 1C. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
What you do when your pet paradigm-hypothesis js in crisis… draw more epicycles. Or in this case adjust some random parameter like aerosols to keep the fantasy alive a bit longer.
Pure Cargo Cult Science in action. Adjust the bamboo radio headsets and maybe this time the airplanes will start landing is the approach by Ms. Marvel, the Climastrologist.
“Examination of Earth’s recent history key to predicting global temperatures”
Astrophysicist Dr Nir Shaviv has looked at the same subject and arrived at a different conclusion:
Regarding projections by the IPCC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB3v86epTw
Regarding solar forcing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCEW2shDSU
Apocalypse cancelled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k385CraNIyY
If the ECS and TCR have “been underestimated,” why have almost all of the models overestimated warming by a factor of 2-3?
Is their conclusion solely based on their assumption that aerosol cooling has been underestimated?
Occam’s Razor might actually apply here. This reminds me of the Ptolemaic invocation of epicycles as an explanation of retrograde motion.
Hi David,
Re aerosols:
Fabricated aerosol data was used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975). Here is the evidence.
Re Dr. Douglas Hoyt: Here are his publications:.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/bio.htm
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/26/the-role-of-sulfur-dioxide-aerosols-in-climate-change/#comment-1946228
We’ve known the warmists’ climate models were false alarmist nonsense for a long time.
As I wrote (above) in 2006:
“I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975…. …the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/28/wild-card-in-climate-models-found-and-thats-a-no-no/#comment-2036857
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#comment-151040
Allan MacRae (03:23:07) 28/06/2009 [excerpt]
Repeating Hoyt : “In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly.”
___________________________
Here is an email received from Douglas Hoyt [in 2009 – my comments in square brackets]:
It [aerosol numbers used in climate models] comes from the modelling work of Charlson where total aerosol optical depth is modeled as being proportional to industrial activity.
[For example, the 1992 paper in Science by Charlson, Hansen et al]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5043/423
or [the 2000 letter report to James Baker from Hansen and Ramaswamy]
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DjVCJ3s0PeYJ:www-nacip.ucsd.edu/Ltr-Baker.pdf+%22aerosol+optical+depth%22+time+dependence&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
where it says [para 2 of covering letter] “aerosols are not measured with an accuracy that allows determination of even the sign of annual or decadal trends of aerosol climate forcing.”
Let’s turn the question on its head and ask to see the raw measurements of atmospheric transmission that support Charlson.
Hint: There aren’t any, as the statement from the workshop above confirms.
__________________________
IN SUMMARY
There are actual measurements by Hoyt and others that show NO trends in atmospheric aerosols, but volcanic events are clearly evident.
So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and “cooked up” (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.
Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore must predict the future with accuracy. (NOT)
That is the evidence of fabrication of the aerosol data used in climate models that (falsely) predict catastrophic humanmade global warming.
And we are going to spend trillions and cripple our Western economies based on this fabrication of false data, this model cooking, this nonsense?
*************************************************
Reply
Allan MacRae
September 28, 2015 at 10:34 am
More from Doug Hoyt in 206:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-around-to-natural-variability/#comments
[excerpt]
Answer: Probably no. Please see Douglas Hoyt’s post below. He is the same D.V. Hoyt who authored/co-authored the four papers referenced below.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?” Yes.
“Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century. Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan. There is no funding to do complete checks.
***********************
IPCC 2007:
Stott et al. (2006c) estimate TCR based on scaling factors for the response to greenhouse gases only (separated from aerosol and natural forcing in a three-pattern optimal detection analysis) using fingerprints from three different model simulations (Figure 9.21) and find a relatively tight constraint. Using three model simulations together, their estimated median TCR is 2.1°C at the time of CO2 doubling (based on a 1% yr–1 increase in CO2), with a 5 to 95% range of 1.5°C to 2.8°C. Note that since TCR scales linearly with the errors in the estimated scaling factors, estimates do not show a tendency for a long upper tail, as is the case for ECS. However, the separation of greenhouse gas response from the responses to other external forcing in a multi-fingerprint analysis introduces a small uncertainty, illustrated by small differences in results between three models (Figure 9.21). The TCR does not scale linearly with ECS because the transient response is strongly influenced by the speed with which the ocean transports heat into its interior, while the equilibrium sensitivity is governed by feedback strengths (discussion in Frame et al., 2005).
Thank you nobodysknowledge. I make no assumption as to your position on this matter.
The quotation you cite from IPCC 2007 assumes that climate sensitivity (to increasing atmospheric CO2) includes feedbacks that are positive.
I have seen NO evidence that such feedbacks are positive and suggest there is ample evidence that these feedbacks are either near-zero or negative.
If the feedbacks are negative then climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is less than ~1C, and possibly much less; and if that is true then there is no global warming crisis.
The global cooling period that occurred from ~1940-1975 provides evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero.
Regards, Allan
Author Kate Marvel: “I’m sorry but climate sensitivity might be higher than we thought”
What did you think Kate Marvel? Quite short memory I think. “Settled science” is thought to have a much higher TCR.
Allan MacRae: “The global cooling period that occurred from ~1940-1975 provides evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero.”
I think that you get it wrong when you pick such evidence. If you take evidence from 1750 to 2014, you get closer to 1 deg C. I should think that it is reasonable to have a null hypothesis of warming without feedback, 1,1 deg C.
nobodysknowledge you said:
“I think that you get it wrong when you pick such evidence. If you take evidence from 1750 to 2014, you get closer to 1 deg C. I should think that it is reasonable to have a null hypothesis of warming without feedback, 1,1 deg C.”
This statement assumes that most or all of the observed warming is humanmade due to increasing atmospheric CO2. I suggest that the null hypothesis is that this warming is natural.
I am also confident that this is the case, based on the evidence.
Allan MacRae:
Please provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity as a constant of the climate system. My current understanding is that the existence of this constant is a fabrication.
Terry Oldberg commented: “….Please provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity as a constant of the climate system. ….”
Another one of those “facts” that are ‘well known’, ‘generally accepted’, and anyone that questions it must be a skeptic. I’m getting frustrated with the ability of the Warmist Cult to make statements based on bogus claims like this and get away without answering when called out. It seems the line of defense to such questions is to just ignore…..and they get away with it because often the questions are never published and if so the answers are never followed up.
markl:
Right on! The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the ratio of the change in the global temperature at “equilibrium” (called “steady state” in engineering) to the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. That the ratio of two variables (for example the price of cabbage in Moscow to the price of rum in St. Croix) is a constant is quite rare. In global warming climatology the numerator of such a ratio (the change in the global temperature at “equilibrium”) is not observable. Thus, the contention that the associated ratio is a constant is not disprovable. Those who hold a naive faith in the honesty of a person calling himself a “scientist” are inclined to accept that this “constant” is a constant and thus to be deceived into parting with a great deal of money.
Terry – you will not get an argument from me.
IF TCR and ECS exist in a practical sense, I say they are insignificant – near zero.
Smoggy China ought to be a case-study just waiting to be analyzed to further quantify aerosol effects. Warmies ought to be on this like flies on excrement to justify (or not) their aerosol-effect estimates. Are Chinese temps dropping or increasing less than other regions due to it?
“the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide”
Assumes data not in evidence.
There is no scientific or logical reason for belief in the proposition that ECS is a constant. That it is a constant is implied by the IPCC and accepted by a gullible public.
This appears to be another attempt to find an excuse for the “the pause” in warming. NASA is saying that they’ve figured out that Chinese (mainly, I presume) power plants have put so much particulate matter into the air that it’s offset the warming effect of CO2.
But they’re also saying that because the particulates wash out in fairly short order, and CO2 levels are expected to stay high much longer, we should expect the cooling effect of the particulates to be short term, and the warming effect of the CO2 to be long term. I.e., “It’s Worse Than We Thought.”™
The flip side of that, which they don’t mention, is that in the 1960s and 1970s we were told that we had to clean up our particulate emissions for exactly that reason: because they were cooling the planet. We were in danger of entering another ice age, said many scientists, because of air pollution, mainly from power plants. So we put scrubbers on the power plants, and cleaned up the emissions, and, sure enough, it got warmer through the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we’re told that warming was because of GHGs (mainly CO2). But if the effect of particulates has been underestimated, so that “the pause” in warming is due to particulates, that would suggest that more of the warming which preceded the pause was actually due to the reduction in particulates. I.e., it suggests that the warming effect of CO2 is overestimated, rather than underestimated.
A paper last year by MIT’s Ben Santor (with many co-authors, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) did an interesting exercise. They tried to “subtract out” the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) and El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. Here’s their paper:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
These graphs are from his paper:
http://www.sealevel.info/Santor_2014-02.png
Look at that 3rd graph. Two things stand out:
1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show about half that. And,
2. The “pause” is over two decades long. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years. Their 3rd graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming in the last 21 years.