After El Niño, Will The Global Warming Pause Continue?

Is the global warming pause over for good — or will it continue once the current El Nino dies down?

That is the key question raised by Dr David Whitehouse, the GWPF’s science editor, in a new video released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The current El Nino is one of the strongest on record. It has elevated global temperatures to a record level.

Many headlines claimed that 2015 was the year the “hiatus” was busted.
But is the pause in global warming really over?

El Ninos are frequently followed by cooler than average periods called La Ninas, so we can probably expect 2016 to be warm with the following two years somewhat cooler.
What does this mean for the global warming “hiatus?”
It means we have to wait for the current exceptional El Nino to end, and the subsequent La Nina, and a few years into ‘normal’ conditions.

Will global temperatures then start to rise again or will they continue to slow down?

222 thoughts on “After El Niño, Will The Global Warming Pause Continue?

      • My money is on a stepwise down in temperature that will be statistically significant a few years after the ensuing La Nina. That prediction assumes the Pacific blob continues to disappear and the PDO returns negative, as well as the AMO going negative sometime around 2020-2025.

    • What “Steep Rise” after the 1998 El Niño are you referring to?? the 15 year period from 1999 through 2014 looks pretty stagnant to me

      • To Bryan: There is a step rise. The only way science advances is if we admit to the facts which may not fit our beliefs.

      • Quite correct, Bryan. I see no post 1998 step. Very kind of dbstealey to provide the graph where you can clearly see the big 1998 spike and then the fabled ‘pause’ thereafter.

      • “Jake

        March 3, 2016 at 10:30 am

        To Bryan: There is a step rise. The only way science advances is if we admit to the facts which may not fit our beliefs.”

        ________________________________________________________________________________

        @Jake
        There has not been any “Steep Rise” since the 1998 El Niño through 2014 up until the Data was adjusted in 2015

        Even dbstealey’s indicated “RISE” is from prior to 1980 until 2014.

        But the statement made by Lance was “Or will they undergo a step rise, as after the 1998 El Nino.”
        and
        again
        since the 1998 El Niño there has been no Rise in temperatures indicated in the Data that wouldn’t exist unless accounted for by Adjustments to the data

      • Absolutely Gerry,
        And there are no other pauses like from 1880 to 1910 (nope, no pause there) or from 1940 to 1977 (nope, no pause there either)

      • I understand his point to be compared to the previous pre 1998 el-nino years (1977-1996). Some on here make the case that almost the entire ~0.25 C warming “step” up was due to the 1998 el-nino. Why the heat stayed in the system longer than anticipated and if/when it will leave are interesting questions.

        Time will tell and we should know in a decade or so. Patience is a virtue.

      • Gerry, England says: “Quite correct, Bryan. I see no post 1998 step.”

        The sea surface temperature anomalies for more than 50% of the surfaces of the oceans show very clear upward steps in response to the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos:

        Also known as Trenberth “big jumps”.

        The graph is posted in my monthly sea surface temperature updates:
        https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/january-2016-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

        Cheers

      • Bob Tisdale,

        The peaks (el nino) and troughs (la nina) and other smaller variations are just fluctuations in the temperature signal, which is smooth. The steps are ilusory. The fluctuation (noise) can be smoothed out by applying a low pass filter.

      • to: dbstealey March 3, 2016 at 12:03 pm

        You ignorant warmist have absolutely no idea of what global temperature does. No one in their right mind will believe your imaginary steps. Just what do you gain from this provocation?

      • Arno,

        Be nice. We’re on the same side. The chart I posted is from Dr. Phil Jones’ data. If you want to be critical of him, be my guest. But if you think I’m a “warmist”, you’re simply wrong.

    • A valid question Lance. It will be interesting to see what the next five years brings. If a step rise is observed, this skeptic would believe that it strengthens the AGW case.

      Having said that, I think those who believe in CAGW hurt the process known as science.

      • Yes. Especially with solar declining.
        The natural variation of LA Nino and LA Nina sums to zero over time… As all natural cycles sum to zero. What’s left is a slow rise due to external forcing.
        Co2, methane, aerosols. Punctuated by small dips caused by volcanoes.

      • Question to Steven: But, aren’t solar cycles natural processes? What caused the increase, and then decrease, in temperature from about 600 to about 1200 AD? That natural process, over the short term of 1-2 centuries, did not “sum to zero” …. and we are certainly concentrating, in the modern era, over the short term (1850ish to present).

      • Please after the Little Iced Age we expect the temperature to recover and there be a new climate optimum. The cyclical variability ,450k years would indicate some manifestation of increasing temperature after the cold. It would be alarming if the temperature didn’t recover. Given these facts AGW is simply a robust misrepresentation using the projected new climate optimum corrilation to CO2 as a red herring.

      • Steven

        sum to zero they may, but when you have hundreds of natural cycles running over totally different time spans neither you nor anyone else can say how long of time span you need to look at for them to sum to zero nor can you predict when we are at the zero sum point. The facts are that nothing that is happening now is outside of the limits of natural variability or for that matter even close to outside the limits so your summary judgments on what is the truth of what is happening now is just more nonsense. You may be correct but until you can establish that we are at a sum zero point for natural variability you are just spitting in the wind, the only way to show that external forcing is driving the train is for there to be a unprecedented change outside the scope of what can be explained by natural variability. that has yet to happen.

      • Seven Mosher says:

        What’s left is a slow rise due to external forcing. Co2, methane, aerosols.

        Care to speculate on what caused identical warming steps, before human industrial emissions were a factor?

      • “The natural variation of LA Nino and LA Nina sums to zero over time…”
        Pure speculation. You should state it is such, not imply that this is factual.

      • The basic physics of gases, and the lack of a hotspot, says no AGW, but a steady rise from the little ice age. Possibly now over, though that is moot.

      • Don’t worry. Mosher sums to zero too.
        Step rises are defined by historians.

        A real “key question” is whether temps might continue rising enough to drag the models back from outside the utter-fail zone. I would bet on “No”.

      • Steven, over 400,000 years of proxy reconstructions appears to confirm that natural variation may indeed average to 0, but the ceiling is life giving. It’s the floor that kills. You seem to have it bass ackwards.

      • Punctuated by small dips caused by volcanoes. Yeah sure Steve, couldn’t possibly be anything else …

      • Steve Mosher

        You have nicely articulated the passivist position on climate. Climate is passive, and can only be changed by atmospheric forcing. No mention of the ocean in your creed, I notice.

        You are wrong. You forget the heat capacity and chaotic dynamics of the ocean, which provides a source of natural climate change for centuries and millenia even in the absence of any external forcing. You need to go back to school one more time, learn about the work of Mandelbrot, Lorenz, especially Prigogine and his nonlinear thermodynamics.

      • El Nino 2006/7 followed by La Nina
        El Nino 2009/10 followed by La Nina follows again

        El Nino 2015/16 Followed by La Nina???????????

    • “Or will they undergo a step rise…”

      You mean, will the Earth continue to warm, as it has been doing all along?

      Probably, And yes, that may allow you to occasionally cherry-pick some noise and pretend there’s been another faux “pause”, while the glaciers melt and the sea level continues to rise and the ocean becomes more acidified and sea ice continues to collapse and animal migration patterns change and growing seasons shift and all the data in the world confirms that the Earth is warming.

      • Yes, the earth has been warming since the little ice age. Why should it stop warming at this point in time? Today’s temperatures are not unprecedented in the Holocene. Warm is good!
        Glaciers were melting before the industrial age. How is today’s melt different from historical melt.
        Sea level rise is not accelerating compared to the pre-industrial rate.
        Antarctic sea ice collapsing? Not according to the satellites.
        All the “adjusted” data in the world confirms that the earth is warming.

        But hey, you need to pick cherries to make cherry pie, right dcpetterson.

      • dcpetterson I’ve a question or two for you. Would you rather see glaciers growing? The last time they did that on a sustained basis worldwide wasn’t a very pleasant time for most life on earth. What if the sea levels were falling instead of rising? Would that not displace a large number of people as well? I’m thinking of all those folks that inhabit port cities all around the world. They’d have to keep moving closer to the water (something that might qualify them for climate refugee status) or take up a whole new line of work. As far as an acidified ocean goes, have you any idea of the pH for the world’s oceans at this point in time? Here’s a hint: somewhere around 8 to 8.5. That’s a far piece from acid. In fact before they become acidic they’ll have to become neutral. So wouldn’t the phrase ‘ocean neutralization’ be a more accurate description of the process IF it were to be happening? Can you point to any particular period of time when ice upon the sea has not experienced breakups from current and wave actions other than the far, far distant past during an era known as “snowball earth”? You do know that animal migration patters have changed through time, don’t you? That and growing season changes happened long before the first human walked on the planet much less bought an SUV. Do I believe in climate change? Of course, that is the nature of climate – it changes. If it didn’t change we might not have had to climb down out of the trees and learn to walk upright. Just a couple more questions. Why do you believe that the earth’s current temperature is ideal? Or, if it’s not ideal, how much colder would you like it to be?

      • while the glaciers melt and the sea level continues to rise and the ocean becomes more acidified and sea ice continues to collapse and animal migration patterns change and growing seasons shift and all the data in the world confirms that the Earth is warming.

        The acidified oceans is a sad joke.
        Talk of sea ice collapsing and glaciers disappearing is nearly 100 years old. A lot of “scientists think….” in papers back then when the CO2 levels were well below the magical 300 let alone the magical 350 ppm.

        Remember when scientists were sure that the globe cooled by a degree from the mid 40s to the mid 70s? Some (granted, a lot more with common sense in those days who wouldn’t play along) wanted to extrapolate that short period to 100 years in the future. Then it became obvious that carbon would not be taxed before it began warming again and now that we have statistical techniques and computers (/sarc) it appears that those scientists were wrong about the cooling.

        That cooling period has disappeared and the next one will not eventuate no matter what is plotted. Local penguin and polar bear numbers will plummet because their favorite feeding grounds are iced over and it will be due to global warming. Dbstealy’s graph above should be a saw tooth trend, not steps. Mosher pretends that the science is settled and in a way it is. Its pointless to postulate as we have been left with nothing to use as observations.

      • “Why should it stop warming at this point in time?”
        Because warmistas are batting .000 and they have predicted continued warming.

      • There is not a single dictionary anywhere in publication, past or present, that defines “acidification” as anything other than the process of being converted into an acid.
        Since the oceans are not, have never been, and will never become acidic, the term is 100% inappropriate as used by warmista panic-mongers.

    • Or will they undergo a step rise
      ===========
      depends who’s thumb is on the scale, er thermometer.

    • RWturner March 3, 2016 at 10:44 am

      My money is on a stepwise down in temperature that will be statistically significant a few years after the ensuing La Nina

      It appears you are prepared to bet on the outcome. Could you be specific about exactly what the bet would be and how much you are prepared to wager.

    • I think you’re seeing the data wrong. It only looks like a step if you start in 1979. If you look at the entire record, it looks more like a steady increase from ~1975 to ~2002, when temperature peaked. The current “end of the pause” is more likely just a pause of the pause. With solar activity taking a dive, it will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years.

    • I have for months been commenting that the 2015/16 El Nino will be seen as a dud if there is no long lasting step change in temperature coincident with it. So this post asks the 64 million dollar question.

      Obviously it is difficult and foolish to predict the future, but if I was a betting man, my bet would be firmly placed on there being no long last step change in temperature coincident with the current strong El Nino.

      In my opinion this El Nino is somewhat different to the 1997/98 El Nino not least with respect to the temperature anomaly starting point. it has not to date produced the same heavy lifting as occurred with the 1997/98 El Nino and it appears to be waning, although that will take time to feed through to the satellite data. My guess is that it is much more likely to be similar to the 2010 El Nino which produced only a short lived spike in temperature and no long lasting step change.

    • Further to Lance Wallace

      Or will they undergo a step rise, as after the 1998 El Nino

      I have for months been commenting that the 2015/16 El Nino will be seen as a dud if there is no long lasting step change in temperature coincident with it. So this post asks the 64 million dollar question.

      Obviously it is difficult and foolish to predict the future, but if I was a betting man, my bet would be firmly placed on there being no long last step change in temperature coincident with the current strong El Nino.

      In my opinion this El Nino is somewhat different to the 1997/98 El Nino not least with respect to the temperature anomaly starting point. it has not to date produced the same heavy lifting as occurred with the 1997/98 El Nino and it appears to be waning, although that will take time to feed through to the satellite data. My guess is that it is much more likely to be similar to the 2010 El Nino which produced only a short lived spike in temperature and no long lasting step change.

  1. The narrator failed to note that 2014 was far from the warmest year in satellite and balloon data, only just barely in the cooked book “surface records”, which are science fiction boiled up by the likes of Gavin and his crony, heavy-thumbed gatekeepers.

  2. Or will they start dropping as various oceanic cycles enter their cold phases and the sun continues to slip into a funk.

  3. The last 2 winters were brutal, this mild one has been a very welcome respite. If La Nina leads to cooler temperatures the next couple winters, I’m going to have to move south.

    • I know, right?
      The only vaguely legit pissing and moaning I have ever heard on the subject of “winter is not cold enough” is when people up North complain that it does not seem “Christmas-y enough” when it is warm out.
      (There may be a valid gripe that some sorts of plants, fruit trees and flowers have a more bountiful Spring when it is uniformly frigid all Winter, but this is more than made up for by people NOT FREEZING TO DEATH quite as often.)
      They ignore that most of the world is not having anything remotely like Winter on December 25th…and people seem to get on with the Holiday season just fine. Just fine indeedy.

  4. We will probably know in time for AR6. The stadium wave paper suggests pausish. The difference in ocean cycles from 1998 suggest pausish. Doesn’t have to be no trend. Just has to be well below the CMIP5 projections to bollox up CAGW models. IPCC wont be able to hide the discrepancy they way they tried in AR5. Essay Hiding the Hiatus.

    • in time for AR6
      ==========
      are they going to have AR6? After “likely” in AR4 and “very likely” in AR5, is AR6 going to be “very very likely”?

      Because once they say “certain” why is there any reason for another AR?

  5. The whole global warming argument is based on the false assumption that the increase in LWIR flux from CO2 (~2 W m^-2) can couple into the ocean. This is impossible once the surface energy transfer processes are understood. The CO2 flux increase is obliterated by the variation in the wind driven surface evaporation. The cooling takes place within a very thin layer at the surface. ~90% of the solar flux is absorbed within the first 10 m layer of the ocean.

    The ocean warming assumption is a fraud that started as the first modeling iteration after the original work by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967.
    A good place to start is the 1981 Science paper by Hansen et al. Most of the basic fraud had developed by then. The history can be traced back from the references there.
    Surface evaporation information is given by Lisan Yu et al (Woods Hole)

    References
    Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’

    Yu, L. (2012), http://oaflux.whoi.edu/images2_flux/EV_50a.jpg
    Yu, L., J. Climate, 20(21) 5376-5390 (2007), ‘Global variations in oceanic evaporation (1958-2005): The role of the changing wind speed’
    Yu, L., Jin, X. and Weller R. A., OAFlux Project Technical Report (OA-2008-01) Jan 2008, ‘Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) Project: Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes, Ocean Evaporation, and Related Surface Meteorological Variables’ (Available at: http://oaflux.whoi.edu/publications.html )

    For further discussion see
    Clark, R., 2013a, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’
    Clark, R., 2013b, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’
    (Paywalled unfortunately)

    • “The whole global warming argument is based on the false assumption that the increase in LWIR flux from CO2 (~2 W m^-2) can couple into the ocean. This is impossible once the surface energy transfer processes are understood. The CO2 flux increase is obliterated by the variation in the wind driven surface evaporation. The cooling takes place within a very thin layer at the surface. ~90% of the solar flux is absorbed within the first 10 m layer of the ocean.”

      Sorry, this is just a climate science sceptic myth…..

      SO the surface layer of land has solar energy “absorbed within the first 10 m layer”?

      So why would land warm either by LWIR?

      Because of conduction.

      Even wet land will warm downwards via IR because of conduction.

      So to with water.

      The surface skin Lyr is warmed (more than otherwise) by LWIR and that decreases the deltaT with depth in the surface lyr (not just the skin but with some conduction a little below – and some mixing).

      AS transport of heat to the air above is dependent on the Delta being large (heat moves from warm to cold – remember we are still in the ocean here. This is just the 2LoT).
      ie the colder the very surface relative to water below then the larger is the heat loss of bulk water to the air above.
      Or in other words you need to consider heat transport and not just temperature.
      Therefore the bulk ocean temp looses less to the air above by the warming of the ocean skin by down-welling LWIR.

      For a fuller explanation see here….
      (This is a lead article at J Curry’s Blog remember please)

      https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/

      • It doesn’t make it right if its in J Curry’s blog. The summary doesn’t mention conduction and the first time its mentioned in the paper its is about transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. Its not mentioned again for half a dozen pages!

        “Unfortunately, it is difficult to estimate the rate of heat gain by the oceans for any given level of increased back radiation, because (i) the calculation is extremely sensitive to how the air above the ocean reacts as the ocean warms, and (ii) it is very difficult to estimate how the air above the ocean reacts to a warming ocean.”

        Strange how not only does the model’s verification depend on a lot of things that are poorly measured and uncertain, but also the debunking that downwelling can’t warm the oceans. The latter is based on the global average ocean heat content that doesn’t show correlation to changes in solar output. To say its a stretch to come to that conclusions based on data that is very uncertain is being polite, especially considering how uneven the warming around the globe has been.

      • ToneB: Therefore the bulk ocean temp looses less to the air above by the warming of the ocean skin by down-welling LWIR.

        When there is ongoing evaporation from the skin, why does the DWLWIR warm the skin instead of increasing the rate of evaporation? For a land analogy, when you increase the flame under a pot of boiling water, what you get is an increased boiling rate, not an increase in temperature; if the water isn’t boiling, you get an increase in temp and evaporation rate. You would expect an increase in DWLWIR to produce either an increased evaporation rate, or an increase in both evaporation rate and temperature. Wouldn’t you?

    • Unfortunately, not a test at all if it doesn’t get cooler from data sets because humans have changed it from doing so with data adjustments.

      • Raw data shows more warming.
        Five more years of crn data and skeptics will have to invent new conspiracies

      • Steven Mosher

        March 3, 2016 at 11:04 am

        Where can I access this unadjusted, raw data. What are their origins

      • Raw data shows more warming

        Not with with any of the official data sets and only UAH stays roughly the same. I don’t see any raw data there warmer than before adjustments.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/downloadFigure/figure/erl408263f1

        The raw data shows all lower anomalies before adjustments made to them.

        Warming (°C/decade) Lag (months)
        ——-Raw ——-Adjusted MEI AOD TSI
        GISS 0.167(25) 0.171(16) 4 7 1
        NCDC 0.162(22) 0.175(12) 2 5 1
        HadCRU 0.156(25) 0.170(12) 3 6 1
        RSS ——-0.149(40) 0.157(13) 5 5 0
        UAH ——-0.141(44) 0.141(15) 5 6 0

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

      • Five more years of crn data
        ============
        yep, we can be absolutely certain that climate doesn’t change naturally of a scale of 5 years, that there are no longer term or short term cycles to climate, that climate only responds to human forcings. not.

      • I suspect by raw data he means the UHI effects that don’t need to be corrected and the step up in temperatures at individual sites caused by a switch to AWS that doesn’t need to be corrected.

      • Seriously Mosh…5 years will prove something?
        How about 20…or 30?
        A nearly twenty year pause has not proven anything to warmistas. For the rest of us sane folks it has, at the very least, proved how good warmistas seem to be at dreaming up imaginative but false ad hoc explanations for whatever seems inconvenient to them.
        Five years?
        *rolls the eyes*

    • Where is the the spike in carbon (sic) in concert with the hottest year/month/day of 2015?
      http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/GreenhouseGas/data/CapeGrim_CO2_data_download.txt
      And the last 4 months they had up showed exactly the opposite of the Warmist story.
      The levels were drastically plateaued.  
      They showed variations only in the decimal points of CO2 ppm.
      If a non-human El Nino was responsible for the spike, where does that leave your carbon (sic) claims?

      The test has happened.

      • “Where is the the spike in carbon (sic) in concert with the hottest year/month/day of 2015?”

        That needs correction, as the 97% Doomsday Global Warming thesis says that carbon (sic) levels rise prior to the frog boiling heat.

      • The sun will progress to the minimum.
        Cloud cover won’t change.
        Co2 will increase and the 30 year trend will be between
        1.5 and 2c per century..

        By 2020 only skeptical conspiracy theories will survive.

      • Steven M says:

        By 2020 only skeptical conspiracy theories will survive.

        The ‘conspiracy’ is the false claim that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

        Is that your conspiracy, too, Steve? Or do you reject that? I’m not being critical, I’d really like to know.

      • Mr Mosher, all my hopes are that you are right. We do not need another extended period of lower temperatures. Warm is good, warmer is better. Then perhaps all those damn Yankees will stay put during winter and we can unclog our roadways here in Florida.

      • And if the sun stopped shining tomorrow, the planet would keep warming because everyone knows carbon (sic) controls the climate.

        “Co2 will increase and the 30 year trend will be between 1.5 and 2c per century..”

        So, all the windmills & solar panels installed so far, and current carbon (sic) taxes and wealth re-distribution, much yet to be realised, won’t stop future Co2 increases, and consequently extreme weather/climate?

        Wait. I think I heard this one before …

        “The new scientific study finds that the leading role in the earth’s warming belongs not to carbon dioxide, as long believed, but to an assortment of rare, mostly artificial gases, many never seen in the atmosphere before the 1960’s.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/12/weekinreview/ideas-trends-continued-a-dire-long-range-forecast.html

      • And if it does cool, Mr. Mosher, will you finally admit the truth that you were completely wrong?
        We are taking notes and writing down names (figuratively speaking…personally I could not give a tiny rats tuchus what earthshaking pronouncements spew forth from the overheated lips and keyboards of people who aint been right yet.)

      • Menicholas March 3, 2016 at 1:32 pm

        “And if it does cool, Mr. Mosher, will you finally admit the truth that you were completely wrong?
        We are taking notes and writing down names…”

        Ya, ve hav un dossier on you.

      • If someone claims what was claimed, then in five years, when the opposite occurs, we should all remember it.
        How long can this silliness of decade after decade of failed predictions, with no one’s feet held to the fire for being so completely wrong, go on?

      • The sun will progress to the minimum.
        Cloud cover won’t change.
        CO2 will increase and the 30 year trend will be between 1.5 and 2c per century.

        Well probably, but what predictive skill does a linear trend drawn from a complex, chaotic non-linear system have anyway and what has 30 years got to do with anything physical – terrestrial or solar?

        By 2020 we’ll still be subjected to: the same potty statistics and argument by 6″ ruler, incapable of distinguishing natural variability from any CO2 induced signal; the same non-integrated diffusion misconceptions; the same lack of adequate measurement and evidence of causality; the same name calling and political point scoring.

        So it’ll be activist fad politics as usual, ramped up by social needier. Better hope OCO2 eventually sheds some light. But we might not have another fan-fair driven Disney World representation of democracy muddled up with a passing El Nino for left-right oscillatory venom. Or at least that doesn’t seem likely.

      • Steven M, If you had but a small sense of history, you would know that the last time the sun went through a few cycles with no or nearly no sun spots. History tells us that Europe had a mini ice age, crops failed and many starved to death. Was that because of lack of CO2 or caused by the sun?

    • The climate system is a set of coupled oscillators. The atmosphere can warm or cool persistently without any change at all in total energy. Lindzen pointed that out decades ago, and everyone hurries to ignore the obvious implications.

      The sun and CO2 are not alternative unique solutions to the problem of a warming climate. Their variations, whether opposed or in concert, won’t test a thing.

      • exactly. and the critical point about coupled oscillators is that the size of the forcing is not the issue. it is the phase of the forcing.

        so it should be no surprise that by concentrating on the size of the forcing, while ignoring the phase of the forcing, climate science models continue to track hot.

      • for example, the tidal forcing are roughly the same all over the earth. yet in some places the tide changes only a foot or two, while in other places it changes 30 to 50 feet.

        same forcing, hugely different result due to harmonic oscillation.

    • Apart from that, the satellite temperatures ±0.3 C and the surface temperatures ±0.5 C (at best) mean all the hoopla about this or that warmest month or warmest year is ignorant nonsense.

      And climate models that are predictively valueless mean that any observed warming can’t be physically connected to CO2 in any case. There is no possible test.

      It’s all just hand-waving argumentation, vested interest, and gotcha score-keeping.

    • Mr Mosher,

      Why would anybody think that there is one primary driver? There are thousands of potential input variables, there are hundreds of reasonable variables.

      Why does anyone think that one variable ( “the sun is finished” ) could be prime; why would anyone think the value of an input characteristic can’t SIGNIFICANTLY change as other characteristics in the system change.

      [see pat frank above]

      To answer my own question, … because they would have to say “I don’t know” every once in a while, and they don’t have that capacity

      (seriously, when was the last time you said “I don’t know”?).

    • Steven Mosher March 3, 2016 at 9:36 am

      >”If it doesnt get cooler, the sun is finished as an explanation of climate change”

      What’s your timeframe?

      If you expect an immediate atmospheric temperature response to solar change you’re neglecting planetary thermal lag due to the ocean heat sink in particular. There’s a body of literature on this with a number of estimates but Kevin Trenberth in his essay ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’ covers almost the entire range when he says the ocean adds “10 – 100 years”. Zhao and Feng found Antarctic temperature lags solar activity by “30 – 40 years” over millennia. Abdussamatov calculates lag by thermodynamic principles near the lower end of Trenberth’s range (14 +/- 6 land+ocean, longer for the ocean in isolation).

      Even the GCMs have an oceanic “relaxation time constant” characteristic.

      Given the recent Grand Maximum up to about 2005 (e.g. PMOD) is probably the highest solar activity for around 11,000 years (Usoskin) it will be some time before a lagged temperature response is detectable, and then only in neutral El Nino/La Nina conditions. In other words, current solar change from Grand Maximum conditions has only just started, why expect to see a lagged atm response now?

      Then how is the current minimal TOA solar change since about 2005 (fraction of 1 W/m-2 in PMOD) detectable as a temperature response at the surface amongst other far greater changes? For example, surface solar radiation (SSR) forcing due to cloudiness changes (Wild et al dimming/brightening) can be in the order of 10 W.m-2/decade regionally over 20 years. Then of course there’s the 60 yr oscillatory component in GMST to play out. The IPCC neglects that completely i.e. the oscillation must be subtracted from GMST to obtain the secular trend (Macias et al and others)

      It is too premature to be discounting solar change at this juncture Steven, but come back on this in the 2020s – 2030s sometime.

    • Steven Mosher: what a nice test….

      If solar power diminishes while CO2 increases, CO2 and solar theories might both be tested by the future evolution of mean global temperature. I think the test will take at least 2 decades, as every short-term increase or decrease acquires multiple ad hoc explanations.

    • Quite happy to go along with that, Steven, because I think that physics works, from experience, don’t you think. I reckon you will agree too whatever the result…..

  6. The entire process of using global surface temperatures from a single year to state anything is severely flawed. The average temperature of the three dimensional object known as the Earth’s surface increased in the El Nino. That is a two dimension measure of a three dimensional object. The total enthalpy of the outermost shell of some reasonable thickness of the three dimensional object did not increase appreciably and may have even decreased. That is a three dimensional measure of a three dimensional object. Further for the purposes of “global warming” it is the one that counts. Perhaps you can use the two dimensional surface over a period of some number of years to say something about the total enthalpy under a reasonable set of assumptions, but one year, warm or cold, does not mean for beans. Sadly, most people do not know what enthalpy is or why it matters.

  7. “That is the key question raised by Dr David Whitehouse”
    He doesn’t seem to have an answer. But I was curious about his data set, as shown in the graph above. Axis labels would help? Does anyone know what it is?

  8. Unfortunately, I find the Dec 2015, Jan 2016 global temperature maps to be very scary.

    They show the “dark place the sun don’t shine” as “extremely” hot
    ….in their eye-candy colors
    and the “hot place in the sun” as “extremely cold”

    This is how A/C pumps heat out of a system.
    Doing A/C on the globe may not be the best
    …with cosmic rays reaching record highs as the sun enters a slumber….

  9. Nobody knows, but at least look at the two different eras regarding ocean surface temperatures to have an idea.

    Ocean temperatures between 40-60N and 40-60S are considerably colder now than back in 1998 around the same period. Therefore once the cooling form El Nino commences this will do one of three things.

    1) Energy dispersing from the strong El Nino warms the oceans between 40-60 especially in the NH. The ocean surface are significantly warmed and energy is redistributed near the surface in mid-polar regions, causing a step up later after the global affect from next La Nina has ended.

    2) Energy dispersing from the strong El Nino has little or no affect on ocean between 40-60 especially in the NH due to the mechanism causing this. The energy lost from the strong El Nino is retained considerably less or neutralized by this mechanism. The Tropics therefore cool significantly, but the mid-polar latitudes remain cool due this new change in ocean surface temperatures. Overall global temperatures plummet causing a step down in global temperatures later, after the global affect from La Nina has ended.

    3) Something in between.

  10. As that saying goes, attributed to everything from a Danish proverb to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra:

    It is dangerous to make forecasts, especially about the future.

    • So which scientific genius, decided to phase shift those two earth maps, so it is impossible to compare them ??

      g

      • “So which scientific genius, decided to phase shift those two earth maps, so it is impossible to compare them ??”

        One who does not want them compared.

      • I was thinking it was because back in the olden days, maps were centered on where people lived…now they are centered on wherever the most anomalous warming happens to be…even if no one lives there.

  11. Will we really know what will happen after all the adjustments are done? Considering what they have done and will do with the RSS data set, all that we will have left are the balloon data sets and UAH. It may come to the point that after all the data is adjusted, the only way we will be able to tell it has become cooler is by having the ice sheets over North America and Eurasia form again.

  12. Who here still thinks that an industry predicated on Global Warming is going to produce information that doesn’t show Global Warming?

    Andrew

  13. From the article: “The current El Nino is one of the strongest on record. It has elevated global temperatures to a record level.”

    As compared to what?

  14. Ever notice that none — not one — of the temperature datasets EVER shows a record low year anymore — or even a record low month?

    The last time we had a record low month was more than a century ago. We’ve had dozens of record high months since then.

    We keep getting record high years, too. Oh, you can argue that it one cherry-picked dataset, 2015 was “only” the SECOND HOTTEST YEAR IN HUMAN HISTORY. As if that’s significantly better. But the fact is, no one — not anyone — has claimed anything even comes close to giving us a new record low.

    If the climate was stable, we’ve have just as many record high and record low years and months, and the highs and lows would be happening with the same frequency. There is only one (1) way to interpret this indisputable fact.

    The Earth is warming. It is in a very strong long-term warming trend. Cherry-picked short-term noise doesn’t change that. Pretending it’s not happening, and reassuring yourselves that it’s not happening, won’t make the data go away.

    Show me the last time any dataset had a new record low. You sure won’t find one more more recent than the last few dozen record highs.

    • Yes, the earth is warming, and if it didn’t but continued cooling down from the Little Ice Age, we would be now heading towards a major glaciation period. However, this interglacial period we have called the Holocene, is not over yet.

    • Do you even understand how that data set you’re quoting was constructed? Or let me guess, you don’t have any sort of technical degree so you can’t explain it without deferring to your ‘expert’ buddies. Am I right?

    • dcpetterson, “If the climate was stable, we’ve have just as many record high and record low years and months…

      Very, very basic error. The Holocene data shows the climate varies spontaneously and strongly, and over quite short time-periods. The variation is likely to be self-same over every scale.

      Only climate models produce stable simulated climates. Earth produces a variable real climate.

      See also my comment above. “Hottest year” or “hottest month” are impossible to know because the temperature data are far from accurate enough to make that distinction. If you’re interested enough to check that out, here you go (0.9 Mb pdf).

      You don’t want to go uncritically accepting published climate data, dcp. Doing so is a big mistake.

    • What is your point? per the data that you trust, the earth is warming somewhat … so what?

      Do you have a point?

      Chicken Little didn’t really have a point either … he thought the sky was falling, and since he couldn’t define the impact he just panicked. Are you any different?

    • Not knowing what has caused the planet to warm since the LIA might explain not being aware why it stopped warming more than a decade ago and why the current spike in surface temperature measurements is misleading.

      Expect new record lows (unfortunately) before the end of the century.

      • I have observed many new record lows recently, especially as regards the critical thinking skills of warmista panic artists and their bed-wetting disciples.

  15. The answer is:

    Both.

    Temperature rise will continue, but be much slower than the alarmists “hope.”

  16. After the Little Ice Age we expect warming. Seriously hope we see continued warming into a climate optimum. The theory of the increase in CO2 causing warning is falsified or lost noise in climate variability.The alternative to warming is frightening.

  17. There is a tendency by trolls and zealots to conflate warming and CAGW. Most of the posters on this site agree that the earth is probably still coming out of the LIA, so it is no big deal or support for CAGW that it is getting warmer. The point at question is why the temperature is getting warmer, natural processes like solar variation or God knows what, or warming being determined largely by anthropogenic GHG’s like CO2.

    • You put your finger on the problem, Tom Halla. If everyone took your advice, they’d have to abandon the argument.

      Can’t have that.

      They live for the argument. Their livelihood depends on maintaining it. Their soul-satisfying, self-validating righteousness demands it. Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a culture of pathology grow up amongst us that has seduced even scientists.

    • The official warmista doctrine seems to be that all natural variation ceased when humans began to add CO2 to the air in measurable amounts.

    • If the atmosphere is warming since the LIA, physics demands that the energy must come from somewhere, whether “natural” or not. Where do you think it is coming from? If from the oceans, then the ocean must be cooling. If from ice, then ice must be forming. If from the sun, the sun must be putting in more energy. Perhaps a decrease in albedo is the answer. Please explain where it comes from.

      • There is a minor little thing called burden of proof. I can observe a cylicity of temperature in Greenland ice core temperature proxies, and conclude there is something going on. It is an ad ignoratium argument to claim that because I do not pretend to know why else there are cycles, the cause of the cycles must be CO2 (or witchcraft, or the turtles farting, or. . . ) . Do not know means do not know.

      • Increased energy need not come from anywhere, seaice1, because the climate is a system of coupled oscillators that all trade energy back-and-forth.

        The atmosphere can warm, or cool, without any increase or decrease in energy inputs at all.

      • Pat Frank. Please, you have just suggested re-writing the laws of physics. temperature cannot rise without a change in energy.
        To be clear “The atmosphere can warm, or cool, without any increase or decrease in energy inputs at all” The atmosphere cannot warm without some energy input to the atmosphere.

        It is possible for one part of a system to heat up if another part of the system cools down, so no net input into the system. I am not asking that. I am asking where the energy to heat the atmosphere is coming from, and it must be coming from somewhere.

        Tom Halla – “I don’t know” is a possible answer. It just does not give much weight to the argument. If one group says “I have a good explanation that fits the facts,” and another group says “I don’t have any explanation, but I think your explanation is wrong because, er, its natural” I know where I would put my money.

  18. Solar variations alter global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy entering the oceans.

    Thus, over time, solar changes shift the balance betweeen El Nino warming and La Nina cooling.

    When the sun is active we see upward stepping of global temperatures from one positive 30 year PDO to the next.

    It follows that when the sun is less active we will see downward stepping of global temperatures from one negative 30 year PDO to the next.

    A pity that it won’t become obvious during my lifetime :)

    • Stephen
      The best place to look for any signs cooling (or warming for that matter) in my view is the Hudson Bay area.
      Because when climate cooling does take place, this is part of the world where it goes extreme. So any cooling trend there over the next few years. Then expect any globe warming to be short lived.

      • The best places to look are the North Atlantic ocean and around northern Norway because these areas warm and cool the most between ice ages and inter-glaciers. A steady change in the AMO is always a sign of change in climate.

  19. There are two sources of potential warming, solar and geothermal. Geothermal being mostly hidden under an average depth of 12, 000 ft of ocean which covers 70% of our planet of which we know little. Believing that the .04% (four one hundredths of one percent) of our atmosphere which is CO2 is the thermostat for our planet is not logical, particularly when we do not really understand how the oceans store and distribute heat.

    • Jim:
      “Believing that the 0.04% (four one hundredths of one percent) of our atmosphere is the thermostat for our planet is not logical”

      Can I put it this way ….
      If all the ozone in the atmosphere was compressed into its solid phase, spread evenly over the surface of the planet, it would form a layer almost exactly 4.0 micrometres (microns) thick, and such a layer would be 1/10 the thickness of a human hair.

      This quantity of ozone is what prevents the Earth from being sterilised by ultraviolet radiation.

      So it’s not the quantity of a substance than matters it’s the effect it has on its environment.

      • The difference is that ozone is just about on its own filtering out UV in the range of 200 nm to 300 nm, while CO2 is just one of many absorbers in the IR.

      • “The difference is that ozone is just about on its own filtering out UV in the range of 200 nm to 300 nm, while CO2 is just one of many absorbers in the IR.”

        OK:
        H20 precipitates out within ~9 days (is temp dependent in the atmos).
        N2 and O2 add up to ~99% of the atmos and are both transparent to IR.

        So leaves CO2 and CH4 and O3 basically.
        Then 100% – 99% (non GHG’s) = 1%
        0.04% (CO2) of 1%
        is 4% of the thing that has greatest (none precipitating) GHE in the atmosphere.
        That has increased from 2.8% to 4% since the onset of the industrial period.

      • Toneb,

        “OK:H20 precipitates out within ~9 days (is temp dependent in the atmos).N2 and O2 add up to ~99% of the atmos and are both transparent to IR.”

        And more is added as the existing precipitates out. Its not like it just goes away. Correlation does not mean causation and even the climate models disprove CO2 as the causal variable since they do a very poor job of forecasting temperature and CO2 continues to increase while temperature does not, so even the correlation becomes poorer all the time, ie the need for adjustments to historical temperatures. Many analyses would indicate CO2 follows temperature. The mosquito in the room gets all of the attention while the herd of elephants is ignored. We are in an interglacial period and have been for what, 18, 000 years, so it’s getting warmer. Warm is better for life, cold is not, generally and historically. AGW is a political, not a scientific, issue. The really effective GHG is water vapor. So we put alcohol in our gas. Burn that and get water vapor. Go figure. The chinks in the armor of AGW theory are monumental. It is all about redistribution of wealth and political power.

      • “OK:H20 precipitates out within ~9 days (is temp dependent in the atmos).N2 and O2 add up to ~99% of the atmos and are both transparent to IR.”

        And more is added as the existing precipitates out.

        True – but this relies on the atmosphere being warm enough to ‘hold’ the moisture.

      • Jim:

        “And more is added as the existing precipitates out.”

        Yes indeed – and so the quantity stays the same.
        Unless the global temp rises.
        It is – so there is an addition due to increased WV too.

        CO2 just accumulates (in excess of the Earth’s ability to sink it).

        Up from 2.8% of back-radiating gasses to 4% in ~150 years.

        “Many analyses would indicate CO2 follows temperature”

        Also correct – that is the natural order of things on millennial time scales caused by Earth’s orbital eccentricities (Milankovitch cycles), whereby reduced TSI in the NH (greatest land and therefore greatest sensitivity) allows a build up of snow-pack and a feedback of increased albedo and falling temps …. CO2 is then better sunk into the oceans (at a lag).

        It is therefore (sorry the science is empirical and not dependent on GCM’s) the climate thermostat in the Anthropocene – on vastly quicker time scales than natural orbital cycle generated climate change.

        “The chinks in the armor of AGW theory are monumental”
        Sorry – the chinks in your knowledge are monumental and reading stuff on here won’t teach you anything but the one side … unless people like me occasionally turn up to make you think away from the echo-chamber cheering that is the norm.

      • Toneb,

        Please explain your calculation that back-radiating gases are up from 2.8% of to 4% in ~150 years. CO2 has allegedly grown from 280 to 400 ppm, but thsoe are only 0.028 to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Other GHGs represent even tinier fractions of a percent. Water vapor has not grown from 28,000 to 40,000 ppm in that time. Indeed, over much of the earth it is at lower than 40,000 ppm concentration. During the LIA, H2O levels were only negligibly lower than now.

    • “Sorry – the chinks in your knowledge are monumental and reading stuff on here won’t teach you anything but the one side … unless people like me occasionally turn up to make you think away from the echo-chamber cheering that is the norm.”

      Toneb,
      Have you ever heard of the psychological term, projection?

      Jim

  20. Repost from longer post here. This is what I think is going on, and what is going to happen:

    There are, of course, other El Nino peaks in the actual data record. I’m just highlighting the last two.

  21. “The Wicked Pause is dead!”

    Not so much. They just smoothed it out to blend with what came before. Result: the models are more divergent than ever.

  22. Time to buy diamond mining stocks!

    Eehh?

    Right!

    Why?

    Carbon!

    ~~~~

    Climate crazies like Hansen, Mann and Gore are running out of options when it comes to the Global temperature pause and their CO2 forced temperature increase, which has not increased except for this most recent El Nino.

    Their options:
    1. Admit that CO2 does not drive and has no connection to atmosphere temperatures.

    1b. They can save face by claiming that humans have succeeded in halting anthropogenic global temperature increase. Give UNFCCC and IPCC a pat on the back, final pay check and send everybody home, or out to look for a new ponzi scheme job, which ever the case.

    2. Blame something else. AH HA, Blame CARBON. They can invent screwy (fabricated) studies showing that “Anthropogenic CARBON” is responsible for forcing global atmospheric temperatures (with sufficient Karlization of course). Then, their piece de resistance, call for the UN and all governments to BAN DIAMONDS.

    Effect is that diamond mining stocks go through the roof and we make a billion off their stupidity.

    Ha ha

  23. I will bet hard cash that the pause will not continue in the coming years.
    Instead, temps will show an undeniable downward trend.
    This is just a hunch, based on the track record of warmistas predictions being what it is: They are wrong about every single thing they predict.
    Just a hunch, but there it is.
    Who will be the den!ers when temps begin to plummet.
    Stick around…things are likely to get interestinger and interestinger.

    • I will bet hard cash that the pause will not continue in the coming years.
      Instead, temps will show an undeniable downward trend.

      Be more specific. I might be prepared to take your bet.

  24. Looking at Hadcrut4, the temperature has gone up about 0.8C in the last 150 years. If every bit of that warming was caused by the additional 120 ppm which has been added since then, what would be the temperature increase caused by the next 120 ppm? Or, how much CO2 would be required to cause another 0.8 degree increase?

    • The next 120 ppm ~0.4 c and ~240 ppm for another 0.8 c increase. It is roughly each doubling of CO2 causes the same temperature increase. If for example your looking at this for the best/worst case scenario, then even with this global temperatures wouldn’t rise another 0.8 c until global CO2 levels reached ~645 ppm. With the current rate that wouldn’t occur until year 2112.

      • Nick Stokes March 3, 2016 at 2:58 pm

        “This implies a climate sensitivity of 1.6 deg C per 2xCO2. “

        That’s not the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It isn’t even the normal definition of transient CS. The CO2 increase creates a flux of 1.9 W/m2, and that goes on adding heat until the temperature rises and increases OLR enough to balance that. We’re nowhere near that balance yet. If CO2 were suddenly fixed, the temperature would go on rising.

        Nick – You clearly didn’t read the whole comment. Read the 3rd paragraph which begins “While the temperature increase is …” I make the very point about you accuse me of ignoring. However I also go on to make the point that TOTAL ghg forcing is nearer to 2.5 w/m2 due to e.g. methane etc.

        The TOA imbalance is uncertain as you well know so my estimate of 1.5 deg per 2xCO2 is as good as anyone’s at the moment.

        I don’t always agree with everything you write, Nick, but I accept you are well-informed and I always make sure I read your comments carefully. Do me the same courtesy, mate.

    • The forcing to date from CO2 alone is about 1.9 w/m2. The forcing from a doubling of CO2 is reckoned to be around 3.7 w/m2 so we’re about halfway towards the doubling effect (approx 560 ppm). This implies a climate sensitivity of 1.6 deg C per 2xCO2. Given that the “No feedback sensitivity” is generally recognised to be about 1.2 deg C per 2xCO2 it suggests a small positive feedback is contributing to the warming.

      Of course, all this assumes that all other positive (e.g. solar) and negative (e.g. aerosol) forcings are in balance

      While the temperature increase is, as you say, about 0.8C the climate scientists would insist that all the warming from the current forcing has yet to be realised and even if CO2 concentrations remained at current levels there is a further 0.5 deg increase in the pipeline. No-one has got a firm handle on this, though, and, even if there is a small TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) imbalance, the fact is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that has increased in the atmosphere over the past century or so and the total forcing from ALL greenhouse gases is more like 2.5 w/m2 which indicates a lower sensitivity.

      Taking everything into account a sensitivity estimate of around 1.5 deg C per 2xCO2 doesn’t seem too wide of the mark.

      • 1.5 c per doubling of CO2 is way too high when the planet shows we half way there and only had ~0.8 c rise.

        For 1.5 c to be true that would mean you agree 0.7 c of the 0.8 c warming was down to CO2 only and nothing else.

        I disagree, closer to 0.5 c for doubling because it has a negative feedback. I don’t see global temperatures for the rest of the century warming more than now by about 0.3-0.4 c. The worst case scenario at the top end of the limit 0.7 c. The reason for only 0.3-0.4 c warming because of two negative PDO and AMO cycles fitting in this century instead of one last century. This is based on the sun cycle not having any noticeable affect in future.

      • “This implies a climate sensitivity of 1.6 deg C per 2xCO2. “

        That’s not the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It isn’t even the normal definition of transient CS. The CO2 increase creates a flux of 1.9 W/m2, and that goes on adding heat until the temperature rises and increases OLR enough to balance that. We’re nowhere near that balance yet. If CO2 were suddenly fixed, the temperature would go on rising.

      • Nick Stokes March 3, 2016 at 2:58 pm

        Nick – I’ve responded to this further up the thread (in the wrong place – my fault).

        I’ve basically told you that you haven’t read my comment properly. I made the very point you accuse me of ignoring in the 3rd paragraph.

      • “I made the very point you accuse me of ignoring in the 3rd paragraph.”
        Yes, apologies, I missed that. It is important. Thanks for making it so clearly there.

  25. @ Toneb

    Ozone is the result of UV’s interaction with O2. Ozone is the byproduct of that reaction. Ozone has a half life of about 30 minutes.

    Less than one hour after sunset, there is no ozone layer above your head. The night sky has no ozone layer, get it?

    First “holes in the ozone layer”, then CO2 radiative GHE, aka, AGW.

    • Will:

      “Ozone is the result of UV’s interaction with O2. Ozone is the byproduct of that reaction. Ozone has a half life of about 30 minutes. ”

      Then another O3 molecule in return – the process repeats…….

      http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone/additional/science-focus/about-ozone/ozone_cycle.shtml

      “Less than one hour after sunset, there is no ozone layer above your head. The night sky has no ozone layer, get it? ”

      Patently untrue else we’d all fry my friend.
      You”re not confusing stratospheric O3 with the surface variety are you?

      “First “holes in the ozone layer”, then CO2 radiative GHE, aka, AGW.”

      Another WUWT speciality – sky-dragon “sceptics”.

      • @ Toneb

        “Patently untrue else we’d all fry my friend.”

        We would all fry under a night sky would we? Presumably due to the hot breath of “sky dragons” as the sun doesn’t tend to fry much at night.

        “Then another O3 molecule in return – the process repeats…….”

        Only in the presence of sunlight. As I said, ozone has a half life of 30 minutes. 1 hour after dark, no ozone layer.

      • Will:

        “Only in the presence of sunlight. As I said, ozone has a half life of 30 minutes. 1 hour after dark, no ozone layer.”

        As I said yes, and another O3 molecule is created just as quickly.

        Sorry “1 hour after dark, no ozone layer.”” Is patent rubbish. It would be gone forever on the first day!
        It has to be replenished as quickly as its destroyed.
        Do yourself a favour and learn some science. Try starting at the link I gave prior.

      • @ Toneb

        “It would be gone forever on the first day!
        It has to be replenished as quickly as its destroyed.”

        Arbitrary nonsense.

    • You’ve missed out the other part: O3 is the result of UV interacting with O2, the O3 thus created is destroyed by the interaction with UV of a different wavelength, if there is no more sunlight the O3 remains.

  26. Both warmers and most of the skeptics on WUWT e g Monkton continue to make the same mistake by ignoring the peak in the both the millennial and 60 year cycles which is seen in the RSS temperatures at about 2003. See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
    The figure below shows where we are relative to this peak and to the long term cooling trend shown in blue.
    The probable coming La Nina will likely drop the temperature anomaly down to minus 0.15 by 2020.

      • The 2003 maximum corresponds to the solar activity maximum at about 1991 + a delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. ” He who laughs last laughs best.” we will see. At least I’m willing to call my shots .What would your estimate of the RSS anomaly at 2020 be.?

      • Here is what the link above says re timing.
        “Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now entering the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.

        That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful clues a long time before that.Look again at the red curve in Fig 3 – you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature trend break. , if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth should see a cold spell from 2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.

        It should also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle – halfway through the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.

        We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be disturbed for a time in some years by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example 1998 ,2010 and especially from 2015 on.

        Fig 4.”

      • While I fully agree with your statistical criticism of the OP, It should be noted that 2003 was the point of minimum cloud cover recorded by satellites. Once you remove the 5% decrease in cloud cover responsible for 75% of the observed warming in the Satellite period, there is no statistically significant trend.

    • Dr Norman Page: The probable coming La Nina will likely drop the temperature anomaly down to minus 0.15 by 2020.

      We shall see. Now and again someone writes an actual prediction. What if the “probable” La Nina does not occur, or isn’t “strong”?

  27. It means we have to wait for the current exceptional El Nino to end, and the subsequent La Nina, and a few years into ‘normal’ conditions.

    Yes, that is what we have to do.

  28. Well a few things have happened recently for me:

    1. The sharp rise in temps for Feb from UAH. Although expected due to El Nino and only 1 month of data, the huge amount it rose in that one month was surprising and not expected. In all honesty, this has strengthened the AGW case for me. (but not the CAGW case). Waiting to see what happens with La Nina. If there is a “step” increase like in ’98, I may be more inclined to be swayed to a more “warmist” viewpoint. If it drops backs to a business-as-usual range matching the past decade, I’ll remain solidly in the skeptic camp.

    2. I see RSS has adjusted it’s data upwards. I had been wondering if such a thing were coming ever since I learned that the guy in charge of RSS was an activist. (after seeing that propaganda video from Yale trying to discredit the satellite data). This makes my stomach turn and only deepens my personal distrust of any data presented by that disgraceful group of the hard-core activists pretending to be scientists. It seems the future of non-biased, clean temperature data is solely in the hands of Spencer and Christy. May be hanging on by a thread. This makes my nervous for what future politics may hold….

    • Whichever way the wind is blowing, eh?
      If I was on such tenuous ground, evidence-wise, I would have to be officially neutral.

      • Hmmm, if the current temp was all the information that was available to us, I would agree I think.
        We have much more to go on than that.
        We have the ice core records, the paleo records on CO2 vs temp…and on and on.
        Warming now or in five years proves nothing, but that natural variation is a fact and that the temp has always gone up and down on every time scale known.

      • Menicholas

        Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining where I stand in the debate.

        On a scale of 1 to 10, if….

        1 = denies CO2 has any affect on climate at all
        3 = believes CO2 probably has negligible affect on climate
        5 = believes CO2 probably has a climate sensitivity of 1-2 deg per doubling of CO2
        8 = believes the IPCC reports and that CO2 probably has a sensitivity of >4, and trusts the IPCC’s models
        10 = believes that CAGW is absolutely a real problem which can only be solved through draconian measures.

        …. the latest data moves me from a 3 to a 4. If the next few years shows the “pause” coming to an end, I’ll move up to a 5, on a scale of 1 to 10.

    • J S G
      “It seems the future of non-biased, clean temperature data is solely in the hands of Spencer and Christy.”

      So the world climate “truth” lies with these two does it.

      Let me put these 3 points to you if I may…..

      1) the world’s climate scientists (except Spencer/Christy) are incompetent.
      2) the world’s climate scientists (except Spencer/Christy) are all in on a conspiracy.
      3) they know more than you do and Spencer/Christy are doing climate science as diligently as every other climate scientist.

      It’s just that they are outliers in having a sat temp database that runs low (for now) and “sceptics” are desperately dependent on UAH (which version”) being right.

      Above the rabbit-hole there is one obvious answer.

      • Science has proceeded by a continuous process of paradigm shifts.
        Was phlogiston a conspiracy?
        Was the belief that continents could not move?
        Was the belief that doing dissection of corpse with bare hands and then walking into the next room to deliver a baby a conspiracy to kill women?
        Etcetera
        Etcetera
        Etcetera…

  29. Folks, I am pretty sure, let’s say 99%, that temperatures will do this:

    http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/figures/temperature_co2_concentrations

    Enjoy the warmth. It won’t last. The oceans will run out of fuel just like a battery needing to be recharged. Thank goodness, while we shiver ourselves to death, the oceans will plug into the ever present Sun and get recharged. And it looks like the colder we get, the more our atmosphere allows the full spectrum and strength of solar irradiance to make it to the surface and below. The downside is a battery sitting in its recharging station, can’t be used to keep us warm and our lights lit.

    And not a single doomsayer, nor a group of climate catastrophic human breath doomsayers, is saying one GAWD DAMN THING about preparing for the cold. Climate change? They don’t know sickum from **it.

    • I listened to the video. The narrator got it exactly wrong when he reported that El Nino is not climate change, El Nino is weather. Here are the salient points. It is well established that the ONLY way we experience a significant rapid rise in global temperatures is via ENSO processes that spread warm pools of water out on top of the ocean like an oil slick which releases heat into the atmosphere then felt on land as a rise in temperature. We also know that when the top ocean layer is roiled up by Easterlies and warm pools are concentrated in Western pockets, we are cooler. It is also now very plausibly theorized that there are long periods of time when El Nino’s tend to predominate, and long periods of time when La Nina’s tend to predominate. In fact, no one, not even AGW scientists have dismissed these ENSO processes or have stated they are no longer in force. Finally, the video presentation fails to zoom out to 400,000 years. Proxies become finer scaled in later portions compared to earlier portions (well established artifact issue in ice cores, sediments, etc). The fact that our current proxy sourced warm period looks extended in that trace is plausibly due to that artifact, not that humans are somehow keeping us warm instead of allowing us to fall off the other side of the sharp peak seen in later proxy portions.

      Until someone plausibly (without fudge factor tuning) demonstrates that something else can overcome and END the strength of ENSO driven climate producing natural intrinsic weather patterns at short, long, and millennial scales (especially in light of Earth’s Milankovitch Cycles ADDING changes in Solar Insolation), the null hypothesis whereby oceans recharge and discharge solar energy rules.

      • Quite a fanciful nEl Nino story you have, Pam. Unfortunately mjany are being misled by this gibberish. First, lets get that fairy tale of El Ninos or La Ninas predominating out of the way. There is no record of it. Going back as far as 1850 it has never happened. That is because they are always formed together as my theory proves. Despite that, Hansen imagines the whole of Miocene as being “El Nino-like.” Since you did not bother to read my book either I will have to explain. El Nino is a harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the Pacific Ocean. To understand this, consider what happens when you blow across the end of a glass tube: you get a note that is determined by the dimensions of the tube, its fundamental note. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the end of a tube and the ocean answers with its own fundamental note: about one oscillation every four-five years. What physically happens is that trade winds push warm water west where it gets dead-ended at the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on the planet. When the pile of water us high enough reverse flow by gravity starts. An El Nino wave forms, crosses the ocean along the equatorial counter-current, and runs ashore in South America. There it spreads out along the coast north and south, and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, joins the westerlies, and we notice that an El Nino has started. And so do the Europeans and the Japanese when the warm air carried by westerlies reaches them. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. When the El Nino wave retreats water level behind it can drop half a meter. Cold water from below then wells up and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the atmosphere the La Nina will now cool it and the global mean temperature remains unchanged over time. It is impossible for the El Nino to cause permanent warming that Bob Tisdale imagines it doing. El Nino is a Pacific phenomenon and does not exist in the Atlantic because there is no place for the trades to pile up warm water as there is in the Pacific. Because there are other things besides ENSO going on in the ocean they can temporarily extend or shorten an El Nino period but it cannot be stopped or permanently changed. Yt all came into existence with the closure of the Isthmus of Panama which established the current flow pattern of Pacific currents.

  30. Although expected due to El Nino and only 1 month of data, the huge amount it rose in that one month was surprising and not expected.

    See my recent post here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/long-satellite-pauses-ending-now-includes-january-data/

    Based on December 1997 to February 1998 jumps, I projected the February UAH to be 0.856 and the RSS February value to be 0.977. The actual results were 0.83 and 0.974 respectively. So nothing unusual is happening as the 1997 and 2015 El Ninos are equally strong.

    • So the real question is just as the title of this blog post asks: Will the pause continue, or not?

      • The real question is will the 4000 year cooling trend re-assert itself in my life time, I hope the answer is no!

    • What it clearly shows is the Earth warms when we have El ninos, and remains stagnant or cools at other times. All of the big upticks are El nino induced, no denying that.

      When we see big upticks without an El nino, which we won’t, then we can reassess.

      • Disgorgement is happening 24/7 right now. A moisture laden warm gift from the ocean. Unfortunately, recharging will have to be substantial to replace what this El Nino has given up. And there is never an equality here. Will it overcharge? Undercharge? Exactly replace what was lost? Only if we fall past neutral and La Nada into an extensive La Nina will we recover. Given that we are at the peak of an interglacial warm period, we will fall off the other side and go into a jagged fall into a deep cold as the Easterly Winds kick up to clear away the equatorial clouds so that the Sun can penetrate full strength to the surface of that all important Pacific Equatorial Band.

  31. John Finn,
    If you are looking for a bet on forward temps I’m happy to take the other side.
    Term:
    1. use current version rss satellite.
    2. bet once per month starting 2017.
    3. take monthly global temp subtract same month year prior. (so jan 2017 – jan2016)
    4. if difference > .15 degrees C you win if less I win (alarmist expectation is twice this)
    5. bet goes for 10 or more years (your call)
    6. payout made monthly
    7. will do in any size you want, minimum $1000 per month (post margin in escrow account)
    Regards,
    David

  32. A “pause” implies a temporary flat period in an ongoing long-term global warming trend.

    Right now it is safe to say there was a flat trend between to El Nino temperature peaks.

    If global warming continues in future decades, we can look back and say the flat trend WAS a pause.

    If global cooling starts in future decades, we can look back and say the flat trend was a transition period between a long-term warming trend, and a new long-term cooling trend.

    Sometimes it’s much easier to understand what was really happening by looking back from many decades later, than it was DURING the flat trend … which should completely disappear after arbitrary “adjustments” in the next few years, just like the hot 1930s and the US dust bowl are disappearing (after revisions the dust bowl will eventually be called the snow bowl, and NOAA will claim the 1930s were so cold it snowed every summer in Minnesota).

    There may have been have been two pauses, and only one rising trend, since 1940.

    Global average surface temperature:
    (1) declined from about 1940 to 1975,
    (let’s call it a pause)
    (2) increased from about 1975 to 2000, and
    (3) stayed flat since 2000,
    (let’s call it a pause for now)

    … all three were happening while atmospheric CO2 levels increased every year … not exactly proving the greenhouse gas theory!.

    (1), (2) and (3) mean the correlation of temperature and CO2 has been negative, positive, and near zero, in just one 75-year period.

  33. If our volcanogenic ozone depletion theory of global warming (WUWT: Volcanoes and Ozone: Their Interactive Effect on Climate Change, December 22, 2015) is correct, both the anomalous warmth of 2015 and the current El Nino are products of chlorine (as HCl) released by the Aug, 2014-feb 2015 eruption of Iceland’s Bardarbunga volcano, the largest basaltic eruption since Laki in 1783. If so, we should expect a return to “hiatus” conditions after two or three years.

  34. A close look at the temperature record shows that the pause in temperature rise began in 2002.

Comments are closed.