Quote of the week from Curry: global warming hiatus for ~2 more decades?

In response to a study from the University of Washington posted on WUWT (and elsewhere) today about a shift in the AMOC and a very clear statement about it not collapsing (as posited for collapse by many), including Michael Mann, Dr. Judith Curry gave this response to the Daily Caller’s Mike Bastasch:

Replying to 

We are watching this closely. In particular we are watching the North Atlantic SSTs. It is possible that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO is underway, which would extend the warming hiatus for ~2 decades.

Right now, here’s what the North Atlantic SST looks like – colder than normal (ellipse mine):

From Ryan Maue (via TR on Twitter): Compared to last year, sea surface temperatures (SST) between 60°N and 60°S are on average 0.14°C cooler — over the past 28-days. What this shows is that SST can be incredibly volatile irrespective of energy uptake.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Make that at least two decades.

And this would be a great time to bring up the uncertainties involved in the limited number of those long cycles of AMO in which to make judgement calls on hiatus or cooling or anything else. Averaging that long cycle with its limited number of turning points in the record in climate models is just dumb and deceptive.

Bill Powers

Or it is Science as a Secular Faith Based Religion.


“…. which would extend the warming hiatus for ~2 decade
…Right now, here’s what the North Atlantic SST looks like – colder than normal ”

Don’t worry, they will adjust the declines away until we are all freezing in the warmest year evah !


Yeps.. I can’t wait until they adjust the cold temps here in Australia. maybe they only do that in summer? Hmm..


It has been chilly and records broken.

The unusual behaviour of the subtropical ridge appears to be the driver, stationary highs all over the place are a clear sign of regional cooling.

very good point
a scientist;

The temperature is whatever
the government bureuacrats
with science degrees
tell us it is.

They have predicted a lot
of global warming,
and people want their predictions
to come true, so there is a huge bias
to report more warming every year.

And that’s easy to do
because the majority of our planet
has no surface thermometers,
so government bureaucrats get to
make up the numbers
… and they don’t care
if they show more warming
than weather satellite data
and balloon data !

The bureaucrats making
the climate predictions
control the surface temperature actuals,
and thats a HUGE conflict of interest
… and also the reason they ignore
less warming reflected in the
satellite and balloon temperature data !

My climate blog:

Man Bearpig

For sure, then adjust the colours they use to make it even warmerer.

Joel Snider

Well, if this pans out, my (non-model) prediction is that alarmists will find a negative spin on stasis.
Sorta like how a hurricane drought is really a bad thing.

Michael Jankowski

They wouldn’t explicitly refer to the hurricane drought…but landfalling hurricanes are part of the water cycle. They can produce 20% (or more) of the average annual precipitation that hits a region. Hurricane droughts can contribute to actual droughts…the latter blamed on climate change.

Joel Snider

The story I read was more concerned that the drought meant really BIG hurricanes on the way – like it was all pent-up.

Joel Snider

Although, your comment does illustrate the perfect catch-22 the warmist narrative has created – climate change is supposed to amplify and increase the numbers of hurricanes – which going with your statement, alleviates drought – but if they DON’T happen, the potential resulting drought is likewise blamed on climate change.
So…, where does just a regular old, average hurricane season leave us?


With lots of coverage of any destruction and flooding that occurs, all of which described as problems that will only worsen with global warming.

Rob Dawg

But of course hurricane droughts are bad. Without the billions of gallons of fresh water to replenish the aquifers our overdrafting of those same aquifers will cause ground level subsidence that will be called sea level rise.


Like the wonderful weather we have had in the UK the past few weeks. According to much of the media we are “suffering” and “slowly roasting” when most of us seem to be really enjoying it.

Phoenix, old soul,
Different Strokes for Different Folks – as ever.
I have endured this hot, dry, spell.
Like the sunlight, but do not like the [more] extreme heat, say over 22 C [about 72F].
Will be watering more and more, now. – whilst it is legal here in South London.



…and very little orange…and no red

Peter Plail

Except in the Arctic, I think. What puzzles me is how the Arctic sea temperature can have a plus 5 degree anomaly, when I suspect its absolute temperature is probably lower than that.

R. Shearer

It’s been below average much of the summer.

Dr. Deanster

The plus 5 degree anomaly is purely driven by winter temperatures. … so instead of it being on average -45C …. it’s now just -40C.

I feel it getting hot in here already.


No, this is water, not ice or air temp. The water may be -1.6C when it is cold and may be +3.5C when the ‘Arctic is screaming’. /sarc The surface water temperature anomaly is not a very good metric since in the Arctic, warm water has no chance of diving deep. It is only the very surface that becomes warmer.

NZ Willy

Actually you are seeing a very deceitful aspect of SST comparison maps because in the polar regions any water is color-compared to the baseline even when that baseline is ice (so the red color compares near-freezing water to below-freezing ice), but where instead there is ice it is whited out — so you don’t get to see where it is colder than the baseline even when that baseline is above-freezing water. Thus global SST comparison maps *always* look warm, by deceptive design.

Louis Hooffstetter

Real climate scientists understand that the more we learn about climate change and how our planet works, the more we realize just how little we actually know.

Joel Snider

A very reasonable statement of good common sense. And there is no way of knowing what you don’t know.
That in a nutshell is why models fail – the presumption of settled science.

Steven Fraser

The way to know what we do not know is to go exploring at the frontier of the unknown.

That’s okay, just don’t take that nonsense, and tell the world it’s going to cost them 10’s of trillions of dollars to completely redo our energy system, and go the wrong way with that change.


Pretty much true in every science. Every time we answer a question, it poses five new questions. It is the beauty of science.

Eamon Butler

It’s important that we understand, there are things we don’t yet understand.


Eamon et al…………………………………..WARNING !!!!!!!!.
IF you keep that topic going…………………we’ll get back to GOD !!!

Trevor – improving.
Only one Shouty [capitalised] word per line.


That is what I was getting at when the topic came out earlier.


I showed 3 months ago at an article at WUWT that AMO moves from positive to negative correlation and back with the solar cycle over a 60-year period.

comment image


As AMO and the solar cycle just passed anti-correlation, AMO is going to turn negative soon. Judith Curry is correct as usual. It should be 2-3 decades of negative AMO, plus low solar activity, the end result should be lack of warming. Maybe some cooling.

The CO2-hypothesis of global warming is dead. They just don’t know it yet.

Yes Javier!!!


In your last post you were very conservative and almost non committal on projecting arctic sea ice extent and volume values over the next 30 years.

I think you may have underestimated the rebound potential.


Maybe I have underestimate it, Ozonebust, but of all the climatic aspects I have looked into the cryosphere is the one that shows a biggest response to CO2 and the one that has suffered the biggest retreat over the past 50 years. Therefore I am hesitant about predicting a bigger recovery. The 1995-2007 retreat in Arctic sea ice extent has been nothing short of spectacular. One third of the extent has been lost, and very little has been recovered since 2007. We might see a bigger recovery over the next decade and a half, but I don’t think it will make up for even half of the loses.


The loss was no different from during the early 20th century warming.

Arctic sea ice has been recovering. It’s flat since 2007 and growing since 2012. At the moment, it’s the eighth highest extent of the past ten years.

WX in August and September will determine minimum summer extent, but a new record low below 2012 is highly unlikely.

As for the rest of the cryosphere, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are growing, and mountain glaciers are behaving no differently from their pattern since the depths of the LIA glacial advance. That is, around half are retreating, and the rest growing or staying the same.

Matt Schilling

Isn’t “eighth highest” of ten also “third worst” of ten?

Frederick Michael

Good catch. To be more precise, looking at the sea ice extent from 2007 through today, only 2008, 2009, and 2015 have a higher extent for July 18th than this year.


But you can see the sea ice map by clicking on any point on the graph. Much of this year’s high extent is a large patch in the Hudson Bay that hasn’t melted yet. That is sure to melt in the next month or so.

The cold spot in the Hudson Bay is also remarkable in the second map posted above. It’s FIVE degrees Centigrade colder than normal.



Depends on whether you think more sea ice be good or bad.

It has to do more with the AMO, for the Arctic not CO2.

On another note if CO2 had an influence in the Arctic why not the Antarctic?

Greg Freemyer


Time for some statistical mechanics and I haven’t done any in 30 years, but I think this is right:

Increasing CO2 levels has 2 opposing features.

– It amplifies the conversion of IR to kinetic energy (heat).

-It amplifies the conversion of kinetic energy (heat) to IR

I hope we all know that if you conduct a statistical mechanics analysis of typical surface air the warming effect dominates, but if you analyze stratospheric air the amplified conversion of kinetic energy to IR dominates and the stratosphere cools.

The ultra cold air in the Antarctic is a 3rd regime. Why do you expect it to work like surface air in the tropics?

It doesn’t. The effect of adding CO2 to ultra cold Antarctic air is to make the conversion of the little heat there is to IR more efficient and thus cooling ensues.

Is there a practicing physicist around that can run the analysis and confirm that for us?


Arctic sea ice has very little to do with CO2, that is pure speculation. You stated quite correctly a short while ago that Earth has been going through a cooling phase due to increased tropical evaporation affecting the 2 meter temperature values, or similar words.

Arctic sea ice has everything to do with the volume of tropical evaporation destined to the poles. The Arctic is the weak pole, it takes the brunt of a warm phase increase in water vapor transport. As tropical evaporation increases, Antarctic transport barriers amplify (increase). The so called Arctic Amplification is a direct response to Antarctic barrier Amplification.

If the predicted cooling persists not only will Arctic sea ice extent and volume progressively increase, the Antarctic Blozone hole Area (ozone hole to the chemically influenced) will reduce in area and duration. They are both controlled by the same pressure paradigm.

There are a number of measures for determining decreasing ocean to atmosphere heat transport, visible alongside and sometimes prior to temperature anomalies.
Best Regards


It should be obvious that CO2 has no effect on sea ice. While Arctic sea ice contracted under increasing CO2, 1979-2012, Antarctic sea ice expanded enormously, 1979-2014.

As the late, great Father of Climatology Reid Bryson so wisely observed, “You can spit on the sidewalk and have more effect on climate than CO2.”


The average summer air temperature in the Arctic is 37-54F (3-12C). The interior of Antarctica only warms to -30C in the summer. Arctic ice, being sea based, is affected by both air and water temperatures. Antarctica ice is mostly land based, so is affected primarily by air temps, which are too cold to allow melting (thus far). The only part of Antarctica that is melting is sea/shore ice, due to warming waters. CO2 absolutely has an effect on sea ice.


“CO2 absolutely has an effect on sea ice.”

Exactly what effect would that be, Chris?


It causes warmer air and water temperatures. That, in turn, causes accelerated melting of sea ice. Here is a paper discussing the increase in warm days and nights since 1979, and a decrease in cold days and nights. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13131-017-1137-5

That’s just them getting the source of the dew point temp increase wrong. They blame it on co2, when in reality it was the changing AMO increasing dew points, and Tmin just follows dew point.

Temps follow the oceans, not co2.


I just read it…They show NO mechanism nor data that the increase in CO2 contributed to warming water and air near the Arctic Circle. At best, they ONLY show correlation, not causation.


Ozonebust, I agree that the mechanism involved might be the poleward heat transport, but it is not only Arctic sea-ice that is affected, as globally glaciers show a similar behavior.

In any case we will see how much Arctic sea-ice recovers over the next decade. The recovery of the past decade has not been very impressive despite North Atlantic water temperature impressive decrease. It is true that it has coincided with the warmest years ever recorded so there is still hope.

Gary Pearse

Javier Remember they started measuring ice from 1979 at the end of a brutal cooling period when many scientists were worried about a global cooling future. The 1930s had articles about melting ice and the plight of Arctic seals. Recent declne is unlikely to be far from normal. The beaches on the now ice bound north shore of Greenland have 6000 yr old drift wood on well developed beaches that take a long time and open ocean to develop.


They got lucky after the 1980 predictions, and anyone with a basic understanding of warm – cool cycles would bet good money that it was going to warm again in the near future.

I think you have that backwards, it’s going to follow the ocean, temps will fall.

Well they would without all of the adjustments anyways.


To whom are you replying ??

Steven Fraser

Gary, the 1979 startpoint is a cherry-pick. Check the charts in The 1990 IPCC FAR and 1995 SAR. Those charts go back to the early ’70’s, and had quite low levels compared to 1979. Those charts were built using satellite observations.

Walsh and Johnson 1979 charts sea ice area from 1955-1977, with anomalies ranging from -800 k sq km to ~ 1 M cu km.

steven mosher

make a testable prediction.
how soon
how cool
for how long.

or its not science.

Patrick MJD

All predictions, about AGW and the dangers, have been tested and proved wrong.

Testable Hypothesis written in 2002:


Excerpt from:

September 1, 2002; Allan M.R. MacRae; Calgary Herald

Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.

Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.

Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.


Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:05 am

[Note to Anthony – this is the second time an old post has been deleted by the new server setup. My Feb 11 2012 805am post seems to be missing.}

Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am

In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.

How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?

This is a good start.

Note that Leif essentially agrees with Nicola – within the bounds of reasonable accuracy, Nicola has a level line at ~+0.4C, consistent with Leif’s “Null Hypothesis” of level temperatures. I hope it is so, because we can live very well with this scenario. In the aforementioned post, I gave this scenario a 20% probability of occurrence.

I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.

In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%

In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.

In “Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline”, posted by David Archibald on February 11, 2012: Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum predict a very cold future, perhaps a “4” (see above categories) for the decade 2021 to 2030, and a “5” for the following decade. I gave these extreme cooling scenarios (“4” or “5” above) a total probability of occurrence of 40% and I really hope that we are all wrong.

Quoting David from that post: “The last time we witnessed temperatures anything like that was in the decade 1690 – 1700. Crop failures caused by cold killed off 10% of the populations of France, Norway and Sweden, 20% of the population of Estonia and one third of the population of Finland.”

This is not scaremongering. This is real science, not the political science of the IPCC.

Global cooling is a much greater threat to humanity than global warming, and global cooling is much more probable to occur. Global cooling is the subject that we should be discussing.

Meanwhile, our society obsesses about the myth of manmade global warming, and we will be horribly unprepared should serious global cooling occur.


I mostly agree with this analysis. But I am wondering, if in calculating the likely potential for crop failures, if the positive effects of increasing CO2 on crop growing speed and temperature tolerance were considered?

Not in my crude analysis SL- the big destroyer of many crops is early frost. Not sure how much increased CO2 increases speed of maturity of crops, if at all.

We have several knowledgeable farmers here – HELP required pls.


Good to see plain writing, Mr MacRae. Looking at 60yr chart post by Javier and Curry comments, I eye-ball the next 10-20 yrs as a 50% probability of a plateau in temps if the current cycle is only just off the peak. From 2040 is where the decline likely bites in. I like your work! Thanks for sharing.

DW Rice

As usual Allan only quotes examples of his and others’ cooling predictions the end dates for which have yet to arrive. He omits to mention the predictions of himself and others the end dates for which have already come and gone and have already failed.

For example, Allan’s own 2008 PDO-based cooling prediction which stated:

“In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.” http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

One decade on and the 10-year rate of warming from 2008-2017 was the warmest on record – even in UAH TLT v6.

A further example is one (of the many) David Archibald cooling forecasts. In early 2009 David published a paper in Energy & Environment predicting extreme global cooling over solar cycle 24 based on reduced solar output:

“As at late 2008, the progression of the current 23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689204

Solar cycle 24 began in December 2008 and is currently in the process of fizzling out. Although it was indeed a period of relatively low solar output, global temperatures have increased at a rate of +0.32C per century over its course; again, that’s according to UAH TLT v6.

Of course, just because Allan and David got these predictions completely wrong doesn’t mean that their future ones will be wrong too. But the studious avoidance of admitting to these errors is telling.

DW Rice

That should be +3.2 C per century; +0.32 C is the decadal rate. Apologies.

UAH TLT v6 here: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

DW – I responded to your criticism previously and you ignored it. You appear to be acting in bad faith, and apparently are a troll.

Your prediction Allan is close to mine just a little further out. I expect a drop to -.5c below 1981-2010 baseline means within the next 5 years.

Thank you Salvatore – and I hope we are both wrong.

Humanity and the environment suffer in a cooling world.

The current mania over (fictitious) catastrophic global warming has brewed the “perfect storm” – energy systems have been foolishly compromised and energy costs have been needlessly increased, primarily by intermittent green energy schemes, all to fight imaginary global warming in a (probably) cooling world.

It has been obvious for decades that intermittent green energy schemes such as wind and solar power generation are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. Tens of trillions of dollars have been squandered on this nonsense.

Society should prepare for the possibility of global cooling, through the following actions:
1. Strengthen electrical grid systems, currently destabilized by costly, intermittent green energy schemes;
2. Reduce energy costs by all practical means, including installation of reliable, dispatchable power generation;
3. Improve pipeline systems for the distribution of oil and natural gas;
4. Development of contingency plans for food production and storage, should early frosts impact harvests;
5. Develop contingency plans should vital services be disrupted by cold weather events (failure of grid power systems, etc.);
6. Improve home insulation and home construction standards.

I suggest this is the prudent path for Western societies to follow. It has no downside, even if global cooling does not occur, and considerable upside if moderate cooling does commence.

There are huge cost-savings that would partially or fully pay for the implementation of these proposals:
1. Get rid of all biofuels subsidies and use-mandates and re-allocate these resources to food growth and quality storage.
2. Get rid of all green energy subsidies and use-mandates (including “first into the grid for intermittent power”).
3. Stop wasting capital on biofuels projects and intermittent grid-connected green energy schemes.

I think just these three cost-savings moves would total trillions of dollars per year.

Regards, Allan

thanks Allan

It is important to note that the above 9 points are not at all radical.

They simply get rid of the costly and destructive green energy nonsense that has infested our society in recent decades, and reallocate resources to ensure cheap, reliable abundant energy, food production and food storage.


And your review of the testable predictions made by the Alarmists shows…

That’s right, that it’s not science.

I said this year is the transitional year Steve. I also said cooling will be the rule moving forward. I also said global temperatures this year will fall to or below the 1981-2010 baseline.
Beyond that the global temperatures will continue to drop but how far will depend on solar activity and it’s secondary effects .


You’ve been predicting cooling since 2010.

We’re in a cycle, it’s going to start cooling sooner or later.

If certain low average value solar parameters were to be met following 10+years of sub solar activity in general which has not occurred until late 2017.

I wrongly thought is would be earlier.


Temperatures have been rising despite low solar irradiance the last 10 years. Now solar irradiance is increasing. So what specific solar parameters are you referring to?comment image

I said late 2017 was when the solar criteria I think is needed for cooling has arrived.

Now it is here and I expect cooling.


What is the criteria?


solar flux sub 90- is in

solar wind 350 km/sec or lower- still not quite but close

ap index 5 or lower – slightly higher but falling

euv light 100 units or less -is in

uv light off 5% or more – is in

solar irradiance – off .1% or more – is in

cosmic rays – 6500 units or higher – is in

None of the criteria was in until about a year ago when it started to come about. In addition this criteria has to follow 10+ years of sub solar activity in general, which started in late year 2005. This is what is needed to have solar impact the climate in my opinion.


and they should fall if the above solar conditions are present. All modified by a weakening geo magnetic field.


“Criteria” is plural.

The PDO shifted to cold mode from 2007 to 2013 -> cold years.

Then the PDO shifted to warm mode again from 2014 to 2017 -> warm years.

The PDO Index went negative again in March 2018 -> cold again?

Monthly PDO Index from 1948 to 2018 is here,


Salvatore said solar caused, not ocean current caused.

Yes Chris, and I believe the Sun primarily drives the whole show, but it is modulated strongly by the PDO.

DW Rice

When PDO entered its ‘cold’ phase in 2008 you predicted then that it would produce cold conditions “for several decades”. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

Yes DW, and the cold PDO mode lasted for another ~6 years, before shifting back to warm for several years, and now it appears to be shifting back to cold again.

During the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975, there was a similar upward shift in the PDO circa 1956, before it plunged down again. When did the last multi-decadal global cooling period start? Almost all scientists say circa 1940, not circa 1956.

Looking at this latest cold pattern, one could argue that it started as early as ~2003, or even ~1998. NASA called the cold PDO in 2008, but it clearly started earlier. We’ll see how long it lasts this time. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2008-066

It’s deja vu all over again!
– Y Berra, American sportsman and philosopher



Meteorologist Joe d’Aleo of WeatherBell commented on this post:
“Meanwhile the AMO had turned cold with a record low TNA (subtropical Atlantic).” [end of quote]

IF the PDO continues into cold mode AND the Atlantic is already there, I suggest that our 2002 prediction of imminent global cooling is looking more probable. Dammit! I really wanted to be wrong about this. I’m getting old and hate the cold!

Maybe there is still hope. Decades ago when my lifelong friend was dying, I tried bargaining with God. I promised all sorts of good things if he survived, but it didn’t work.

Maybe if I upped the ante. Name your terms God, and I’m in. No more swearing? Dammit! I mean… Darn!… I mean… Sigh! Another deal – busted!

Bundle up folks – looks like global cooling is in the pipeline! 🙁

Reference and plot of TNA Index:
Tropical Northern Atlantic Index (TNA)
The TNA SST anomaly index is an indicator of the surface temperatures in the eastern tropical North Atlantic Ocean. It is calculated with SSTs in the box 55°W – 15°W, 5°N – 25°N.

John Endicott

Congrats Mosh, you’ve just admitted that most of what passes for climate science is not science. There’s hope for you yet 😉

Clyde Spencer

Are you talking about Hansen’s prediction 30 years ago?

Tom Abbott

Hansen and Gavin Schmidt have already fixed this potential embarrassment to them:


“Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”

end excerpt

The Climate Alarmists are still going to be claiming they know what they are talking about even if it does cool in the future. They’ve got all the bases covered. At least, propaganda-wise.

Gary Pearse

All the ‘ridiculously persistent hot blobs’ of a a few years ago have switched to large ‘cold blobs in the oceans’. ENSO has decoupled from global temperatures under this new development and although it is threshold El Nino at the equator, the oceans overall are cold and global temperatures continue to flatten. We are in for a very cold winter this year (last year’s was cold enough). We had a week of warm weather in Eastern Ontario but the last couple of nights are in the mid teens C – with highs in the low to mid 20s in our hottest month.

Much of the cold water for the prior weak La Nina conditions didnt upwell in the eastern Pacific as usual but slanted equatorward from the cold blobs in the temperate zones.The Western Pacific Warm Pool has been unimpressive and I note Australia is engulfed in cold water, including the GBR that’s supposed to be dying of heat stroke. Actually we havent heard the alarm bells on the reef for a while and the vituperation and gnashing of teeth against Cook U’s prof Ridd for his crticism of the alarmist reef experts signals their own doubts about CAGW and the horrible end of the reef. The experts are praying for the worst, Im sure. I would keep these guys ashore as a precaution.


Actually no, the ABC were banging-on again today about the ‘crisis on the reef’, BS. They had some phoney greenie dope on da nuws, talking all manner of nonsense about how the reef recovery rate slows down as it recovers, and its really much worse than we think, even though the reef has basically fully recovered. Maybe the ‘expert’ greenie dope should look up the term, ‘Climax Community’.

The only way this GBR hysteria ends is when the ABC is completely abolished.


The tale of the tape…..

1) The 3-variable chart
Time-depth temperature diagram along 59 N, 0-800 m depth, across the North Atlantic Current.
at http://climate4you.com/

2) The recent plunge

Joe Bastardi

I have been pointing out the cooling for quite some time, However, there is a big caution in my writings based on the amount of WV super Ninos put in the air. If you look at temperatures in the wake of the 97-98 super Nino, a pause did indeed begin but at a level higher than what it was. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg This one may be doing the same thing, In addition in the wake of the additional el ninos between 1997 and this last super nino, temperatures dropped lower than they were, This is the highest post nino temperatures ( out 2 years) on record. My take is that the immense amounts of WV ( think about the difference between and enso event that reaches plus 1 vs one that gets to 2 or higher as far as the amount of WV) Takes much longer to wash out Because as I pointed out, while the changes in temp within a couple of years may be negligible, where its cold and dry, or in nightime lows, extra wv means higher temps and that gets factored in, What would it take, Well you are seeing the start I think but I question as to whether it gets back down to pre 15-16 levels in the running means for a long period of time that fast, Like it or not, another enso event is coming on and while I dont think we will spike all that much, it may retard further cooling back toward where we were, Essentially a new pause may be developing , but at a higher level Just a thought


There is a precedent, Joe. The massive 1878 El Niño that caused millions of casualties. No doubt it put as much WV in the atmosphere as the recent one or even more. That was no obstacle for a temperature decrease afterwards.

comment image

I would not be surprised in the least if we see something similar this time around.

DW Rice


“I would not be surprised in the least if we see something similar this time around.”

Considering that (apparently) both PDO and AMO are entering their cool phases and that solar cycle 25 is set to be little different from the very low solar cycle 24, what conclusions would you draw if global temperatures failed to cool over the next 10 or so years?


We are in a general multi-centennial warming trend. No conclusions can be draw if temperature fails to go down, but conclusions can be draw if temperature fails to go up. If the pause continues and there is no net warming from 2002 to 2035 we can conclude that natural forcing + variability is at least as strong as anthropogenic forcing. Not precisely what the IPCC has been saying, and then we can cancel the alarm about Global Warming.

Good answer Javier.

And since we already had ~35 years of global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975 even as fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated, we already know that “natural forcing + variability is at least as strong as anthropogenic forcing… and then we can cancel the alarm about Global Warming.”

Been there, proved that.

I have had many conversations with Joe on this subject. I have maintained that this year would be a transitional year which seems to be the case thus far and that from here -next few years the cooling trend should continue. A climate shift or perhaps something more is now occurring in my opinion.

Overall sea surface temperatures now off over .2c since last summer and are now barely above 1970-2000 means and are still trending down. Overall global temperatures also in a down trend. The big climatic player is the North Atlantic which has cooled significantly. ENSO, is not a climate player in that it does not cause the climate to shift much less transition to another climatic regime. It is also very transient and has all degrees of strength, configuration and duration of time.

I believe the recent down trends in global temperatures are tied to the very low average value solar parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (look at my web-site for details climatebusters.org),modified by a weakening geo magnetic field. I called for this years ago and my web-site once again can verify this to be so.

My theory in a nutshell is very low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a slight increase in the albedo, if certain low average solar criteria is meant for a sufficient duration of time. It does not take decades to manifest itself which is evident when one looks at the historical climatic record which shows so many short abrupt climatic changes.

The climate when it changes to another regime or shifts does so very fast. It only changes gradually when in the same climatic regime, which we have been in since coming out of the Little Ice Age, which by the way took the climate less then 10 years to make that transition. The transition from Little Ice Age conditions to the present climatic regime.

So far so good.

Wim Röst

The cooling North Atlantic (which is a long term development, see the second graphic below) will have an autonomous effect on global temperatures. Just because of her effect on water vapor over the North Atlantic and the Arctic. It will diminish water vapor in the air and change the circulation system in a way that less depressions will go northward into the Arctic, transporting warm moist air to the North Pole.

Last two decades gave Western Europe a lot of southwestern winds during wintertime, bringing in warm moist air. The same happened in the wintertime in the Arctic, resulting in the warm wintertime spikes as shown in the DMI graphics. Example:


The reason for the winter warming was the absorption of surface radiation by the high water vapor content of the air. Before, the dry Arctic wintertime was a period of high loss of energy that was radiated by the surface. But the influx of warmer ocean water, the corresponding low pressure areas bringing in warm moist air and the by both developments resulting extra water vapor in the air and absorbing surface radiation, all together resulted in the strong Arctic warming that we have seen. A cooling North Atlantic Ocean will change all because of the resulting loss of radiation absorbing water vapor, resulting in a cooling surface.

A continued autonomous cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean will finally result in an autonomous cooling effect for the North Atlantic / Arctic area and for the earth as a whole. To be added to other developments elsewhere.



Nice comments.
One only has to look at the flat top on the CO2 curves during December to February for Cold Bay Alaska, Ireland etc, those other higher latitude CO2 sampling sites to gauge the rate of Arctic atmospheric inflow. Some sites even reduce or have a slight downturn in CO2 values that are very tightly grouped together due to very high atmospheric traffic and CO2 dilution during a period when NH emissions are at the very highest. If CO2 values are grouped very close together = high atmospheric flow.

It is, and always has been a no brainer.

Wim Röst

Ozonebust, for measuring heat loss at a certain latitude the combined quantity of H2O and CO2 molecules gives a good indication for ‘absorption’ of surface radiation and so for the by the atmosphere retained energy. The total quantity of H2O molecules normally outnumbers the number of CO2 molecules by far. On the average there are 30 times more H2O molecules compared with one CO2 molecule. H2O is by far dominant in absorption, but is highly variable in quantity: “Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics”. Source: The abstract of the Lightfoot and Mamer paper
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X17722790 :

The quantity of water vapor is highly temperature dependent. Seasons make a big difference in the total quantity of water vapor. Even during daytime, the total quantity of water vapor is highly variable, due to higher temperatures during daytime. Warmer oceans / less sea ice influence in an enormous way the total quantity of water vapor and so the absorption of surface radiation at the highest latitudes. H2O is by far the dominant player in absorption, well visible in the areas where all ‘climate change’ manifests itself most: the higher latitudes near the North Pole. It is water vapor, H2O, that makes the difference (after other factors like warm ocean influxes and intrusions of warm moisture air in the region caused the higher water vapor content).


Any comment on ozone ratio at Poles?


Interesting juxtaposition though, the southern ocean has been colder all this year.


Even as nino gathers:


South ice is looking healthy this year:

comment image

And looks like the nino trend may be weakening in the west pac already, even as ocean around Aust and NZ in perticular have continued to cool off:


So maybe the nino flops a bit from here.


I notice that MLB is blaming the unusually cold and rainy weather for a significant fall in attendances this year. This is serious, people!

Damn right! Baseball matters!

The Great American Game – Field of Dreams.

Here is a plot of the trends of the “hiatus” of the last two decades, extended for two more decades (base 1981-2010):

comment image


The problem is not the trend it shows, but the trend it should show.

comment image

CO2 is loosing warming power as we speak.

“The problem is not the trend it shows”
It is if you are going to call it a hiatus.


I’ll call it something else. What about “CO2-busting period”?


How much co2 ppm/v increases the temperature 1 C ?


A think we all agree ‘hiatus’ does not mean ‘end of warming’. Curry just said there could be a period, twenty years, of slow warming. Climatically 20 years is a short period, but for GHE-AGW-CC-people it is a long time to wait.

“A think we all agree ‘hiatus’ does not mean ‘end of warming’. Curry just said there could be a period, twenty years, of slow warming.”

So now “hiatus” means “slow warming”?


Hiatus = slowdown, of temporary quality. Claiming hiatus does not claim end of warming, nor it actually requires stopped warming as of stopped in stopped.

“Hiatus = slowdown, …”

If “‘hiatus’ = ‘slowdown'”, simply use the word “slowdown,” rather than inventing a new meaning for the word “hiatus.”

“Claiming hiatus does not claim end of warming, nor it actually requires stopped warming…”

It requires (temporarily) stopped warming to the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world. I challenge you to find any dictionary that includes “slowdown”–rather than “pause”–in the definition or list of synonyms for “hiatus.”



The problem is you are using a chart already bastardized by warming shysters
The real temperature today is exactly the same as 20 years ago.
comment image


Let’s see, so your curve fitting plot sits well above the highest 13 month average temperatures prior to 1998, and far below the temperatures since 2015. What is your rationale for doing that?


You have a point there, (multiple, pun not intended) but it looks like some d3nial when you choose to ignore fitting a trendline and see there is a pretty good trend upwards. Not as steep as we were promised (still need to buy new banana plants every summer), but a warming trend anyway.

Sorry folks, I’m not trying to troll you, but that kind of argument is wildly inbalanced. You see it a lot in certain blogs, as Heller’s but then, Heller is not even trying to be balanced. He’s more likely trying to be as inbalanced as possible to compensate what he thinks is unfair.

There. I think I’m not making friends a lot.


I agree with a lot of what you say, but I see no trend. Fitting a trend-line is the curse of much of modern science, and is done using such low parameters as to be generally meaningless. Short run, natural variability can easily produce a trend-line, and a random walk can easily produce a trend-line. When i look at the graph, I see two distinct periods – lower temperatures, with no trend then a big natural event that slightly raises temperatures, that then continue slightly higher with no trend.

Fitting a single trend is always possible to a graph like that, but almost certainly wrong.


How can you say there is no trend? If you look at the start, the midpoint is roughly -.15 to -.2. Call it -.15 in 1979. In 2018 the running average is around +.3. That’s .45C in 39 years, or 1C/century. How is that no trend? I’m not saying the figure is exactly 1/century, but is certainly not flat.

Richard M

Chris, your trend is at least double what it really is due to noise. When you correct for that noise, using time periods with minimal noise, the real warming is .25 C since 1980.

April-August 1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
April-August 1990….. 14.5 C (58.1F) .02C
April-August 1995-96 14.6 C (58.2F) .09C
April-August 2001-02 14.7 C (58.4F) .19C
April-August 2007….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
April-August 2014….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .17C
April-June…..2018….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .20C

Also note no warming at all this century.

Since there was no warming prior to 1980 for the previous 30 years that means the trend is closer to .4 C / century.


Specifically what noise are you referring to? Your starting value and time of -.06 for April-Aug 80/81 is preposterous. You are taking the very highest value of the sinusoid as the mid level, which is not valid. Your last point is the very lowest of the April-June period of 2018. There is no basis for doing that. In essence you are using the highest value of a sinusoid as your starting point, and the lowest as your end point. If I employed such techniques, my starting point would be -.35, and my end point would be .4, for a total of .75C over 39 years, or more than 2C per century.

Richard M

Chris, you simply don’t understand the concept of noise. It does turn out much of the noise in the 1980s was below average because of the volcanic eruptions but that’s just the way it worked out. You don’t like the answer so your immediate response is denial.

The reason I use April-August is they have the least amount of ENSO activity. It is also the months where the AMO has the smallest impact.

1980 is a bit on the warm side with positive Nino 3.4 values which is why I averaged it with 1981 which had negative Nino 3.4 values. The number is the average of all 10 of those Spring/Summer months.

The current value (2018) is the average of the those same months so far but still needs two more months of data for it to be complete.


We’ve been through this before. You call most of the earth’s climate noise. You say the 1980s had higher volcanic activity than other times. The total VEI for the 1980s was 41. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century

The total VEI for 2000-2009 is also 41. Data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century

So there is no difference between volcanic activity in the 1980s and the 2000s.

Richard M

Chris, it is only large scale eruptions that pump SO2 into the stratosphere. Looking at total VEI is useless. Look at the atmospheric opacity data or temperature data for the stratosphere. The major eruptions are obvious. Eg.

comment image?w=842

You are digging to find an excuse. So far, not working.

Chris wrote, which is incorrect:
“So there is no difference between volcanic activity in the 1980s and the 2000s.”

In fact there are huge differences re the major global cooling impact of volcanoes in these two time periods:

Two major volcanoes caused significant global cooling in the 1980’s and 1990’s – El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo.

The cooling impact of these volcanoes is modeled here and in earlier posts:

No such major volcanic cooling has occurred since then.


This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line (a function of Nino3.4 SST), which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed in the atmosphere after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global atmospheric temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.



The 2016 Super El Nino skews the “hiatus” higher than it would otherwise be.

Instead, please extend the real temperature Plateau out two more decades, ignoring the recent SEN. The Plateau was from the end of the 1998 SEN to the onset of the 2016 SEN.


Ignore the 1998 El Nino, ignore the 2016 El Nino. It doesn’t matter, the long term temperature trend is clearly upward, at roughly .5C over the 40 year period, or 1.2C/century. And that does not include accelerated warming from higher CO2 levels.

Richard M

Chris, see my comment above. You are wrong. Much of your trend is due to including volcanic cooling in the early part of the trend. Only look at time periods without noise and you get a much different picture.


In the first place, there hasn’t been global warming of 0.5 degrees C over the past 40 years. But even if there were, you can’t extrapolate that alleged warming out to a century. You ignore the pronounced global cooling which occurred from the ’40s until 1977, when the PDO flipped, despite rising CO2 during that interval.


Just out of curiosity Nick, what are your predictions for temps over the next 20 years? Warmer, colder, same and if one of the first 2, how much?




By how much? 1/2 C ? 1 C ?



In 20 years? Not gonna happen in the real world. In climastrologists’ cooked to a crisp books, maybe.

Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012. Its extent yesterday was higher than eight of the past ten years. Only 2015 and 2009 were slightly higher.

Earth has cooled dramatically since the end of the 2016 Super El Nino.

The trend is not CACA’s friend.


I’d guess 0.2-0.4C. But you can hold your measuring stick so many ways there is little chance to predict/project well. I just wish I live to see. Much depends on how much the global emissions of methane, CO2 and aerosols develop. Much depends on how natural variation turns out to have biased sensitivity estimates.

“But you can hold your measuring stick so many ways there is little chance to predict/project well.”

Currently, all indications are that I predicted/projected pretty well more than a decade ago:

Total global CO2 emissions from year 2000 to 2100: 95% chance greater than 460 GtC (gigatonnes as carbon), 50% chance less than 730 GtC, 95% chance less than 1070 GtC.

Total temperature rise from 1990 to 2100: 95% chance greater than 0.02 degrees C, 50 percent chance less than 1.2 degrees C, 95% chance less than 2.5 degrees C.


P.S. Those temperature predictions are for global lower tropospheric temperatures. I don’t accept that surface temperatures are an appropriate measurement for the effects of CO2 and other atmospheric forcings on global average temperature.


Interesting, I’ve not seen that before. Thanks


Nick, 0.5° in 20 years is double the observed warming rate so far. You really are expecting a strong warming acceleration. I am afraid you will be disappointed. I advise you to not bet on that.


Disappointed, hopefully not. I just /hope/ we must be /relieved/ to have been wrong, and anthropogenic forcing is 1) driving 2) not driving too fast.


Nick, 0.5° in 20 years is double the observed warming rate so far. You really are expecting a strong warming acceleration. I am afraid you will be disappointed. I advise you to not bet on that.

2000 adjusted for enso and volcanoes ~0.25ºC 2017 also adjusted ~0.6ºC. 0.5ºC in 20 years is not much of an acceleration by comparison.

The current ppm/v is 411 which is 126 ppm/v higher than the pre industrial ppm/v of 285. At current rates another 50 ppm/v or more will be added in 20 years.
How do you reconcile black body radiation at 255 K, co2 at 285 ppm/v producing a warming of 33 K… and that an additional 50 ppm/v will only raise the temperature by 0.5 C ?
That is a 12% increase in co2 from today’s level.
Of course, if we go back to 1966 when co2 levels were 12% higher than pre industrial levels, the temperature then, should have been 0.5 C warmer according to you. If the relationship between co2 and temperature were strictly linear it would have been 3 C in 1966. But that’s not what AGW was/is calling for, exponential is what they are calling for. Every chart I’ve seen shows surface temperatures in negative numbers for those years.
One or the other is wrong: the S-F formula for black body radiation and the difference in observed temperature, or the calculations after that for warming based on co2. Chemistry is pretty consistent. You’re adding an agent, co2, you have a heat source, the sun. The chemistry didn’t change right after 285 ppm/v, and a new paradigm ensured thereafter. What would be the reason for a different paradigm for the co2 to act differently above 285 ppm/v?


So if the next twenty years are not that warm you will admit your theory is wrong?


And if the next 20 years are that warm, will you admit your theory is wrong?


Per Decade warming rate ALWAYS below the IPCC per decade rate.

Digest that!

There will also, of course, be natural variation. There always is.

John Endicott

20 years haven’t even passed and he’s already making excuses for why his prediction will fail.


No, he’s just saying it won’t be a straight line – just as the upward trend over the last 30 years is not a straight line.


Thanks. I’ll come bug you or buy you beer in 2 decades 🙂

“Thanks. I’ll come bug you or buy you beer in 2 decades 🙂”

Nerd analysis:

It looks to me like Nick’s “prediction” was based on a choice between two numbers. But let’s say he truly thinks there is a 50% chance that warming will be more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in the next 20 years, and a 50% chance that it will be less than that.

If so, would you bug him, or buy him a beer, if the warming turns out to be, say, 0.38 degrees Celsius in the next 20 years?

Joel Snider

‘…and if one of the first 2, how much?’


Is that a bad thing ?
I live 666 feet above sea level (O’Hare airport), the “Russians” have got at least 5 of their missiles aimed at my backyard.
I’ll bet 3 of them will fail to launch, and the other 2 will scatter nukes around, then it will come down to the boomers.

Here is a 20 year prediction, and I hope that I am still alive 20 years from now to see if I was correct. The upcoming decline in temps will last into the early 2030s. A warm trend will start in the mid 2030s, although there should be an uptick in temps in the final years of the cooling trend. Meaning that by around 2036/37 that global temps will have recovered most or all of the temp drop during the cooling trend. Then the occasional spikes in global temps will once again be seen/felt, until the next cooling trend starts up in the late 2060s. The one thing which would change the last portion of this prediction is if there is a second round of cooling in the second half of the 2030s. Then we would have a more prolonged and deeper cold spell for another 30 odd years.

goldminor we our kind of close in our thinking. The difference is I am expecting cooling to come sooner and probably be deeper. My prediction is probably one of the most extreme predictions out there. Sink or swim.

I hope you are alive 20 years from now to see how your predictions pan out. I think you could be right. It is a very sensible prediction.

I appreciate all predictions no matter what they may be. I think it is necessary to make predictions right or wrong because it shows you have conviction.

Clyde Spencer

Mosher would like to know too!


Cherry pick much ???


Nick, are those numbers before or after we adjusted, made for purpose, ARGO data to match ship intake data?


The slope of the surface measurements is higher than the slope of the two tropospheric satellite measures.
CMIP3 and CMIP 5 ensembles say it is supposed to be opposite if water vapor amplification of ECS is to happen.


“What a tangled web we weave when first we seek to deceive.”

“The slope of the surface measurements is higher than the slope of the two tropospheric satellite measures”
Not really. UAH is the only odd one out. RSS is about the same as surface, and definitely rising more rapidly than HADCRUT.

I think the inference is that satellite measures are flaky.

Richard M

Nick, RSS does not show any warming this century when you look only at periods with minimal noise.

April-August 2001-02 14.8 C (58.6F) .31C
April-August 2007….. 14.7 C (58.5F) .24C
April-August 2014….. 14.8 C (58.6F) .30C
April-June…..2018….. 14.8 C (58.6F) .27C

Why would that change going into the -AMO?

Ridiculous cherry-picking. And cherry-picked rules do not fare well in the future.

Richard M

I love the denial when you don’t like the answer. Yet, it is obvious you could not articulate any reason for your claim. LOL.


Write a paper defending your choice of April to August – oh, and cherry picked years.

Richard M

Chris, the months are obvious to anyone who understands climate. ENSO is known to be the strongest in the fall and winter months (peaks around Xmas). Summer is also the time when it gets warmest in the NH and that is where it is supposed to get the warmest and would be the biggest problem. Finally, fall and winter is also the time where the AMO effect is the strongest.

This isn’t rocket science. I tried to minimize the influence of ENSO, AMO and volcanoes. The years are picked with exactly that in mind. It’s a form of signal processing. Minimize the noise and what’s left is the signal.

If you have something intelligent to add, please feel free to spit it out.


So you’ve decided that out of 211 months thus far this century, all but 17 are noisy and therefore should be tossed out. So you are saying that 92% of all months are noisy and only 8% valid. As I have noted before, that means that your definition of “noise” is incorrect.

Richard M

Yes Chris, that is how it works out. You don’t really need that many months. In fact, just knowing the start and end values is sufficient. The intervening months just give a degree of verification.

If you went on a diet and started at 200 lbs and ended at 175 lbs does it matter what happened in between?

Mike Roberts

There is no “answer”, as Nick pointed out, it’s using cherry picked data. As all cherry picking, to try to put an argument, is ridiculous, then this cherry picking is also ridiculous. Since cherry picking doesn’t give any clear picture of reality, it’s also true that they are not any use for projection. No reasons for claims needed as it is self-evident.

Richard M

Mike, it appears you believe signal processing science is “ridiculous”. LOL.

It appears you believe noisy data is great.


Also, according to CACA “theory”, the air should warm before and more than the land and sea surface, not the other way around.


“Theory” yet again busted.

I was going to post something similar using only the UAH6.LT data. But this is much better. It shows how ridiculous the use of the word “hiatus” is to describe the warming of the last two decades.

Nice cherry pick starting from the very bottom of a cooling downturn, then coming forward in time.

Michael Jankowski

Here is a chart showing Nick’s honesty at WUWT:



FWIW. This dandy course handout details the Arctic energy budget. Note that ocean transport and sea ice export combined are more than an order of magnitude less than the atmospheric transfer of heat.

The fact that Atlantic Ocean circulation is slowing will have some effect on Arctic temperatures but the atmosphere is still the boss. If I had to vote I’d pick Dr. Curry’s version rather than the version that says global warming will resume when Atlantic circulation slows down.

Brett Keane

The degree of virulent hatred shown Dr Curry by Nick and Mosh, precludes them from any meaningful consideration in this posting. In any case, I’ll back her reasoning anyway.

“The degree of virulent hatred shown Dr Curry by Nick and Mosh”
Really? A plot of trends?

Nick I disagree with you but appreciate you putting forth a prediction.

Only time will tell if you are correct or not.

Bill Treuren

Yes Nick that is a serious line in the sand.
2.5C/century could be a problem if it happens as we will break the post ice age temperature maximum thus far.
As an extra what CO2 level or rate of increase would generate that outcome. I know this is in itself a further line in the sand but it would clarify your prediction of how the future will unfold.
As you can see I have a significant level of skepticism regarding CAGW and also AGW but in my mind a watching brief and sane policy setting are needed.

Hansen’s Scenario B has been followed fairly well for CO2 so far. It says 442 ppm in 2038. That implies moderate restraint in emissions. Probably Paris with ome lapses.

Clyde Spencer

Fairly well? That is the language one might expect from a poet or maybe a lawyer used to qualitative descriptions. Scientists use numbers to describe measurable things. How about a correlation coefficient or an R^2 value? It appears you use ambiguous descriptors to avoid anyone seeing the obvious.

You display extrapolations of linear regressions above (without numerical values for the slopes), but can’t seem to bring yourself to admitting that a linear extrapolation of pre-1988 temperatures provides a slope that is almost a perfect match (to three significant figures) to the linear regression of the post-1988 temperatures. That is, an extrapolation of a linear regression on actual temperatures, with no assumptions about scenarios or hypothetical events, is far superior to the predicted temperatures, (based on scenarios B or otherwise) as compared to reality.


Scientists use numbers to describe measurable things.
Hansen’s Scenario B says that the annual mean CO2 would be 399ppm in 2015, it was in fact 399.5ppm.
How’s that for a number?

Michael Jankowski

Obviously the reference is to your history, not your chart here.

Playing dumb again?


Stop falling for the climate shysters name games and stop calling it hiatus which is presumptuous that warming will resume and go up and up only,
start calling it the end of warming which is what it is.


I’ll call it what it is: the abysmal failure of the CAGW models and the people who created them.

Ralph Knapp

How can there be a global warming hiatus when there was no global warming?

Bruce Sanson

Hi,the reason they want to blame this North Atlantic cooling entirely on the north Atlantic drift is because in this way the total heat is still retained in the ocean. If however the cooler water is even partly from the Arctic (I think mostly) via the Fram strait then this water will have already lost its heat to space.

steven mosher

she asked a question.
science makes predictions based on our best understanding.

if course its POSSIBLE, anything is possible.
is it probable?

show your work.
make a quantitative prediction.

i predict you will change the topic. so prove me wrong by confining your responses to currys statement

Bruce Sanson

Are you talking to me? see here
comment image
deep cooling especially at around 73 degrees north. see here
cooling is exactly where recent rapid ice builds are occurring and we know sea ice build causes deep cold water formation, especially over open water (no insulation from pack ice). From above ocean currents slowly drain into the north Atlantic. This a bit too coincidental for me. BTW- I wasnt having a go at Judith but the authors from earlier today which I missed seeing.

Bruce Sanson

Sorry, a prediction?- from history we get 30-35yrs of cold phase NAO so I think about 30 yrs before the arctic ocean fills with enough pack ice to stifle cold deep water formation and allow the northern North Atlantic to warm.-BTW see dates for this cooling trend. If the THC caused this then the NAO would have gone cold prior to 2014.


Who are you talking to?

Why don’t you make a prediction and show us your work (yours, not somebody you have read).

I predict you will do neither.


Why does he need to do that? He has dozens if not 100s of papers he can choose from. Where are the corresponding skeptic papers?


Later this year, pictures of manniacal shoveling global warming off his sidewalk and scraping global warming off of his fossil fuel swilling car.

Steven Mosher


“”The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn’t be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon,” Tung said. “The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”


Is that your prediction then?


Will the predicted warming make winters generally colder or milder, Steven?
Or is the answer to that question contingent on today’s weather – heads you win, tails I lose style?

Is It Okay to Enjoy the Warm Winters of Climate Change?
Atlantic, Feb 2017

A warming Arctic can actually make our winters colder
Popular Mechanics, Sep 2017

Climate change at work? Weather Service calls for third straight mild winter.
WaPo, Oct 2017

Why climate change may be to blame for dangerous cold blanketing eastern U.S.
NBC, Jan 2018

What are your thoughts on the bipolar outbursts of your cult concerning the anticipated effect of global warming on winter?


“The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”

They just showed they don’t understand what they are talking about by failing to predict the cooling. Why should we believe their warming prediction? After all they only know how to predict a lot more warming that then fails to materialize. They are pathetic.

So true.

John Endicott

make a testable prediction Mosh.
how soon
how warm
for how long.

or its not science

show your work.
make a quantitative prediction. i predict you will not respond, or just make another drive-by post. so prove me wrong


Colder than long term averages, not colder than normal. Normal has no meaning here.

The earth has entered a 650 year cooling stage since passing the Millennial Turning Point in 2003/4 See
The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
Energy & Environment
0(0) 1–18
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable
See Fig 12comment image
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.
And Fig 11comment image
Fig.11 Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature (29)

The global millennial temperature rising trend seen in Fig11 (29) from 1984 to the peak and trend inversion point in the Hadcrut3 data at 2003/4 is the inverse correlative of the Tropical Cloud Cover fall from 1984 to the Millennial trend change at 2002. The lags in these trends from the solar activity peak at 1991-Fig 10 – are 12 and 11 years respectively. These correlations suggest possible teleconnections between the GCR flux, clouds and global temperatures.
By contrast, the lag between the solar activity peak at 1991 and the Arctic sea ice volume minimum is 21 years (30). It is simple and natural to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 with the millennial temperature peak and trend inversion in the RSS in 2003 with the solar activity 1991 Golden Spike, and to project forward a probable general temperature decline for the coming decades and centuries. Lags differ between data sets because of the real geographical area differences, proxy data point selection differences and instrumental differences between different proxy time series.


Dr Page
Your Fig. 11 is quite compelling and identifies a related trend. Others on this thread are predicting 1 to 2 C rise over the following 20 years without providing a base line reference point, 1850, 2000 etc. Same nonsense.

More importantly after spending some considerable analysis time looking at temperature anomalies, I have come to the conclusion that no-one understands the mechanism that causes the variations. They are what is recorded so they must be correct. In a technical accuracy sense they probably are, but what is being recorded and what caused it (i.e. did the wind change direction, have the blocking mechanisms changed due to increased evaporation etc) is unknown and not even considered important. Anomalies are OK in a static environment, however earths atmosphere and oceans are not static.

One thing is for sure, you cannot use anomalies from a cold period as a base line to reflect what is occurring during a warmer period of greater ocean water vapor release as down stream mechanisms change that significantly influences the reason for the anomaly.

Ozonebust You say. “I have come to the conclusion that no-one understands the mechanism that causes the variations” This is not so . The causes are simple and obvious .Read the paper. Just convolve the natural 60 and 1000 +/-year .Cycles – the first is clearly a Jupiter related astronomical cycle and the millennial cycle is obvious in the temperature data. see Figs 2 and 3 .comment image
Fig. 2 Greenland Ice core derived temperatures and CO2 from Humlum 2016 (8)
The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.comment image
Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)
Any discussion or forecast of future cooling must be based on a wide knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures, after all, the hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme to the grant awarders, politicians, NGOs and the general public.
The following papers trace the progressive development of the most relevant reconstructions starting with the hockey stick: Mann et al 1999. Fig. 3 (10), Esper et al 2002 Fig. 3 (11), Mann’s later changes – Mann et al 2008 Fig. 3 (12), and Mann et al 2009 Fig. 1 (13). The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. For real world local climate impact estimates, Fig 3 shows that the extremes of variability or the data envelopes are of more significance than averages. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting have no necessary connection to reality, particularly if turning points picked from empirical data are ignored.


Dr Page
My reference was to the period 1979 to current. The detailed satellite era.


Looks like Nicks warming prediction is simply continue trend out of LIA, but couched under the guise that it proves CO2 causality….subtle but cute,

So what alternative causality do you have in mind?


There is a natural Arctic – high latitude amplification effect during periods of increased tropical evaporation, caused by SH mechanisms. I have looked at every year in detail in the satellite era, specifically the NCEP CFSR / CFSv2 – 2 meter charts produced by Ryan N. Maue.

There is no clarity, or even an awareness in the need to understand the ocean and atmospheric mechanisms that control the temperature anomalies between the base period (i.e. – colder) and the current warmer period. Unless there is clarity any comparison is like walking in the fog.

All we have currently is an anomaly number – no understanding of why they changed between the periods. Attribution to CO2 is both politically convenient and scientifically naive. The words apples for apples come to mind. If you don’t know the mechanisms of the past and you don’t know the controlling mechanisms over the current anomalies, you don’t know anything at all – all you have is a number.


Look at the two charts in the link below.
2005 – Look at the immediate mirror effect between the NH and SH. What is the controlling mechanism ? Answer – it is not CO2.

2015 – look at the high and rapid variability of the NH (primarily Arctic) before the sun even moves north of the equator, and again in later in the year when the sun has returned to the SH. Look at the way the NH anomaly is driving upwards right through to late October. There is NO discussion on these aspects of the anomalies. Just the number.




Really? You can imagine no other reason for warming during a natural 320 year-old warming trend other than man-made CO2 since c. 1945?

Earth has been warming since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum. The late 20th century warming was no stronger and lasted no longer than prior warming cycles since the end of the Maunder. Indeed, the first such cycle, during the early 18th century, was stronger and lasted longer than did the late 20th century cycle.

And the early 20th century warming cycle, under much lower CO2 levels, is indistinguishable from the late 20th century warming. Hence, the man-made CO2 hypothesis is yet again shown false.

As it also is by the fact that for the first 32 years after WWII, the world cooled dramatically, despite rising CO2. Until the PDO flipped in 1977. Then, by pure accident, a slightly warming planet happened to coincide with still rising CO2. On the basis of that coincidence, we are supposed to abandon the industrial society which has allowed human population to grow from less than one billion before the Industrial Revolution to almost eight billion today.

Macha you are exactly right Lewis and Curry make essentially the same gross error of judgement as the rest of the academic climate establishment and ignore the millennial turning point illustrated in fig 4 in the paper.comment image
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2004 .The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 was truncated at 2004 and 2014 because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By early 2018, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019+/-

“Compared to last year, sea surface temperatures (SST) between 60°N and 60°S
are on average 0.14°C cooler ”

No one can measure sea surface temperatures
to hundredths of a degree C.
or to tenths of a degree C.

Ms. Curry would do herself a favor
by not predicting the future climate.

The main point made by skeptics
should be that the climate can not be predicted,
as proven by the climate computer “models”
over the past three decades!

Jeremy in JAX

we all know what the response will be..warmists will tell us that the cooler North Atlantic is a result of melting ice and thus still an indicator of climate change..


What were the responses to all of the same predictions from WUWT a decade ago? Seems that the constant warming is ruining the meme that the earth is cooling, and this year’s strange predictions from the WUWT crowd will also be wrong.

Climate is changing. Seems that so many people are forgetting the past decades, and pretend that they have the coming decade right. Not sure why.


That’s interesting, I seem to remember that the Gorebeal Warming crowd got most climate models wrong. I don’t see a whole lot of earth shattering predictions from the WUWT folks. They usually say that there isn’t any earth destroying warming and if there is a little it’s due to natural causes. They usually explain why and how much of an impact people have on climate but I’m not sure about these phantom predictions you mention?


“Gorebeal Warming crowd ” What is that?

“got most climate models wrong.” They all predicted warming. They got it right. And almost half did so well that a few years surpassed the mid-line of the projections. That’s somehow wrong? Anyone who predicted cooling was wrong. Anyone who said “hiatus” was wrong. The earth warmed.

“and if there is a little it’s due to natural causes. ” That’s just dumb. Of course it’s because of CO2. Fingerprints.

You really should read about past projections before you pretend that they are phantom.


I’m glad you mentioned reading. That’s what I do. I’ve read about many predictions. Most of them are much lower then warmists say they will be. If the earth has been going through a warming trend since the little ice age in the 1700’s it’s not hard to predict warming, when it’s been going on for centuries. Where they’re wrong is when they exaggerate the amounts. Aren’t we in a “hiatus” now?

And since you have some questions I would like to ask you one. Why is CO2 increasing a bad thing? Have you read about exactly when the CO2 is too high for plants, the ones that didn’t adapt yet? I’ve tried to lower the amount of name calling in this post as it’s childish and unproductive. Thank you for your reply.

“And since you have some questions I would like to ask you one. Why is CO2 increasing a bad thing? Have you read about exactly when the CO2 is too high for plants, the ones that didn’t adapt yet? ”

You didn’t ask me, but I’ll give you some responses:

1) If the current atmospheric concentration was 180 ppm, it wouldn’t be a bad thing (because we’d be in the middle of an ice age). If the current concentration were 280 ppm (about equal to the pre-industrial concentration) increasing CO2 would still not be a bad thing. As toxicologists say, “The dose is the poison.” There *has* to be some concentration of CO2 at which increasing CO2 is a bad thing. Maybe we’re not there yet. But maybe we are. There’s probably a fairly broad range about which there could be much legitimate debate about what is “optimum”…say 280 ppm to…380 ppm? 400 ppm? Maybe even 420 ppm?

2) The issue of when CO2 is too high for plants would probably not come up in any realistic discussion of what the “optimum” atmospheric CO2 concentration is. We’re humans, not plants. Plants in greenhouses do well with CO2 concentrations up to 1500 ppm:


That would likely cause sufficient warming to do many bad things like:

a) Dramatically harm coral reefs with both temperature increases and water acidification,

b) Melting of snow caps in many of the world’s mountain ranges (eliminating a convenient water storage mechanism).

c) Significant increase the rate of sea level rise.

To summarize: Increasing CO2 may be a bad thing because we may already be above the “optimum” CO2 level. The level of CO2 that’s optimum for plants is way above the level that would be optimum for humans, because we aren’t only dependent on plants for our well-being.


So then the question becomes what percentage of the total CO2 released globally is from human sources? I really have to go to my labor intensive position in the morning so I haven’t been able to find it. Was it .0001% of all releases? I’ve heard in the Cambrian period the CO2 was 6600 without adverse affects.

If CO2 doubles right now aren’t we talking about .3 to 1.1 degree of warming? Hasn’t the earth only warmed .6 degrees in the last 100 years? Aren’t the ice caps pretty stable and the amount of sea level rising in question from people who study tectonic land level adjustment and local settling from water extraction? Then there are those who don’t see the science in adjusting the unpleasing data from satellite measurements?

Hasn’t the ocean acidification farce been exposed multiple times? I’ll try and find out more about that for you if I can but you seem like someone who should have looked into that already.

I do remember the amount of global warming % is estimated from CO2. Isn’t it around .21%? I like your point about hiatus being a funny way to describe a period with less warming. It’s kind of like saying the warming is going on vacation since it got a nice deal on some beachfront property rentals.

Thanks for the wonderful response. It’s good to be on a site that doesn’t put up with trolls. so much work though… wonder if Alley is still around?


P.S. Thanks for the informative greenhouse article. I like all the information I can get, especially when there aren’t disclaimers because they haven’t taken the time to do research or actually believe anything they’re saying. Also, I want to let everyone know I’m moving on from this comment section. I have more to learn as I’m sure everyone can respect.


What constant warming?

GASTA was flat for all of this century before the long overdue 2016 Super El Nino.

Since then, Earth has been cooling.


Don’t worry the BBC are on the job

“Slowing Gulf Stream current to boost warming for 20 years”


“The air temperatures globally will be warming and there’s no barrier for that so there won’t be much cooling in the UK, you will probably still see the normal global warming,” said Prof Tung.

An expert has spoken


The discussion has moved on, but for the record for Mosher and Stokes, predictions in science need to be unique, not just predictions, i.e. caused by your theory, not just happening.

I can predict that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow and for the rest if the month, but that doesn’t mean my Thierry that it is the chariot of Appolo will be proved correct if it does. There are other explanations.

So you need to predict things that otherwise will not happen. Sadly temperature rise doesn’t work since we are trying to disentangle natural from anthropogenic.