What if the Global Warming “Pause” was “Fast Forward” Instead?

September 15th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’d like to take you through a little thought experiment.

We all know that global warming has been on hiatus – set on pause – however you like to characterize the lack of significant warming, for over 15 years. Depending on how you do the statistics, the vast majority of the climate models used to guide our energy policy have over-predicted the surface warming trend since the satellite record began way back in 1979.

Oh, and those aren’t just failed forecasts…they are failed hindcasts. Even knowing the answer, the climate modelers can’t explain why the Earth hasn’t warmed as fast as it was supposed to.

The most cited potential reason for this unexpected inconvenience is that the oceans have been taking up the extra heat and replacing it with cooler water from the ocean depths. In that scenario, the natural ocean surface-cooling mechanism now in progress (if it exists) will eventually go back to normal, and surface warming will return with a vengeance. Just you wait and see.

But what if this supposed natural ocean fluctuation, which is supposedly cooling the surface, was reversed?

What if warming was set on fast forward, rather than pause? What if surface warming was progressing faster than 95% of the climate models had predicted, rather than slower than 95% of the models? How would the global warming establishment be playing it?

After watching the IPCC crowd for the last 25+ years, I feel pretty confident they would be falling all over themselves declaring “it’s worse than we thought!” They would be adjusting the sensitivity of their models to produce even more warming.

Yet, they would never substantially reduce the climate sensitivity of their models to produce less warming, as seen in nature. In other words, if warming hasn’t materialized, then we must have faith that it will eventually appear – because the climate system must be really sensitive…

So that the climate researchers’ lives have meaning.

But…if there happens to be *faster* warming than expected, well, the experts would be all too willing to adjust their models to have even greater climate sensitivity.

This is a reflection of the fact that the global warming establishment is biased toward high climate sensitivity. It is a specific example of the tendency of natural scientists to view nature as fragile, full of tipping points and hobgoblins.

That they fancy themselves as objective is embarrassing to me. No, I don’t consider myself completely objective either. But at least I can entertain alternative possibilities regarding the sensitivity of the climate system. If a scientist entertains anything that smacks of “skepticism”, however, they are not allowed to play in the IPCC sandbox.

Both of these scenarios: (1) the lack of significant warming, or (2) rapid warming, could happen with a climate system that warms exactly the same amount in the next 100 years (that is, has the same climate sensitivity). The difference is the timing of natural warming and cooling events, which can last two or three decades.

But it is unsettling how our feelings about climate change (and the political rhetoric and policy changes) can waver based upon what happens over only a year or two. Yet, the rate of both surface and deep ocean warming since the 1950s, after accounting for natural El Nino and La Nina fluctuations, suggests no cause for alarm.

If faster warming does resume in the coming months and years, it’s important to stay focused on the amount of warming…over the long term. Thinking and talking in qualitative terms, like record warm years, can be used to fool and manipulate people’s emotions on the subject.

Even a new “record warmest year”, year after year, is not that significant if the total warming ends up being only 1 deg. C more over the next 100 years.

And until the models can explain what happened in the past they should not be trusted for guiding policy into the future.


58 Responses to “What if the Global Warming “Pause” was “Fast Forward” Instead?”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Alan Poirier says:

    Point well taken. We should all be willing to ask ourselves: what if we’re wrong? It forces us to re-examine our biases and our thinking. For example, here’s a blog from the Hockey Schtick about a new paper challenging the ocean-ate-my-missing heat meme.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/09/new-paper-explains-dissipation-of-ocean.html

  2. Below is my reasoning for why/how the climate changes which are ignored by the so called climate models in totality hence the climate models are way off.

    My five basic climate modulators being ignored by the climate models.

    In addition the reason the pause in global warming is elusive again comes down to my five climate modulators be ignored.

    My climate approach I feel is much more comprehensive and makes much more sense when one looks at the historical climatic record then AGW theory.

    Aaron right or wrong this is my conclusion as to why the climate changes. Look below my commentary on the sun.

    As far as solar activity it is different now then it was before 2005 and just how much different will remain to be seen. Post 2005 being much quieter in contrast to years before 2005.

    rgbatduke my reply.

    Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.

    CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.

    CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.

    I maintain these 4 factors cause the climate to change and they are:

    Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions

    Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.

    Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.

    Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.

    Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.

    Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.

    Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.

    Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
    Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.

    How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.

    In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .

  3. bassman says:

    NASA August 2014 hottest on record, .70 Anomaly. It looks like NASA will come in 2nd or tied for first. NOAA will have a very good shot at warmest on record for 2014.

    I agree with most of what Roy said in this post. I’m interested to see if winter temps in the NH will rebound because that is where most of the slowdown has occurred.

  4. dp says:

    Given that warming has been going on for thousands of years and that accelerated warming happened in an interrupted fashion at best over a few decades, what is the excitement about? If natural variability has a signature this is surely it. Nature has declared the models defective and the IPCC agrees. Why don’t we start spending money on arresting the spread of and then eradicating ebola right damn now?

  5. Jim Curtis says:

    The Earth has much more experience (0.5 billion with big life and 4 billion of lead up) than we do in maintaining stability – or at least putting bounds on chaos. Even in the face of real catastrophe it hasn’t gone into the ditch like Venus or Mars – it has recovered. I don’t believe the positive feedback hype. We are trivial compared to what it has already dealt with. Is the “pause” cause for celebration? For me it is. I’ll take it. I don’t worry that it’s not real.

    • Brian H says:

      Except for the political and economic exploitation threatening the world, steady-as-she-goes warming would be a continuing strong positive for mankind. Even getting way, way back up to the Holocene Optimum level would be great! The Pause is bad news, for exactly the opposite of the reasons the Warmists think.

  6. Noblesse Oblige says:

    They couldn’t adjust the models upward very much and still have a stable climate. As it is they almost butt up against the limits of stability with F as much as ~0.8.

  7. Mike Haseler says:

    You have hit the nail on the head. To a real scientist a fail forecast is bad whether it is high or low, but to a zealot, it’s only a failure if it isn’t high enough.

    Likewise, to a real scientist the pause is only a statistic. But to the zealots it is a calamity.

    That’s what I have always so loved about it. I couldn’t care two hoots about the actual trend, except that by the way the zealots got so incensed it showed that they were zealots and nothing else.

    And if you hadn’t considered it – even if it now starts warming – the problem is that none of them can explain why it is warming any more than they can explain why it paused.

    So, unless they all miraculously predicted warming – it will be even more obvious that they can’t predict the climate.

  8. RW says:

    Roy,

    You are actually assuming the climate will continue to warm. It may or may not — we don’t know.

  9. derfel cadarn says:

    What if we were honest and examined the facts and developed a policy from that ? What if we stopped lying about “settled science”, what if we admitted that as long as there is a tomorrow science can never be settled ?

  10. lewis says:

    It seems there are some people who want/need to believe that man is responsible for natural occurrences. This is historic and many of us have learned of the human sacrifices made to appease the gods so they would make cause some change in nature. Perhaps there was a drought so virgins must be shoved into the volcano.

    Today, despite our pretense of more knowledge and more rational thought, there are those who still believe man is responsible for whatever is ‘wrong’. Their belief is that mankind is a bad actor, causing mischief with the world, and so must be punished for his behavior. Climate change, actually cAGW, is the current hobgoblin.

    The purpose of these purveyors of sinful mankind is not to resolve whatever mischief mankind may be doing but to punish man – so long as they don’t suffer personally in the process.

    Actually I find what they are doing or advocating not so very different from what the fascists advocated and did in the 1930’s and 40’s. There bugaboo was Judaic and millions died as a result of their efforts. The results of the actions the cAGW crowd advocates will be no different in result only in methodology. Millions throughout the world will suffer and die, and they will say it is for the long term good of Gaia, so……. Hardly my friends.

    As pointed out above, the earth has seen its way through many changes and we are here. The fact that we are aware of our actions does not make our actions bad, it just makes us aware.

    We are just now learning what causes the climate to change. Hopefully Salvatore is not completely accurate because personally, I like warmer weather better than cold.

    Here in NC our growing season is only 6 or 7 months long, so why does the AGW crowd want it shorter – so we can feed less people? Will they be the ones to starve or do they think someone else should go first? If they had become self aware at the height of the last glaciation, would they choose to stop warming at that point.

    The fact is the AGW crowd is reminiscent of the witch doctors of the past: anything to keep the people paying them to do their tricks is their game.

  11. wyoskeptic says:

    Global warming on pause, the hiatus, whatever a person wants to use to describe, my questions remains does it even exist and if it exists in the realm of a few degrees over a full century, is that even significant?

    Look at where I live. Today’s high? 73 F. Last monday’s high? 89 F. What was the temp on last thursday? The high was 34 F. (The low was 32 F.) We had about an inch and a quarter of snow. (According to the weather site. Funny how on the level, it was well up over my ankles. Wasn’t that much wind involved this time.) What is the forecast for tomorrow? 83 F. What is the historical average? 74 F.

    I am on the east side of the Rockies, on the high plains at an elevation of 4500 ft. This is mid-continent, no nearby bodies of water for moderation, no lake effect, etc. We get our weather from what ever direction the wind is dominating. Winter, give us an Alberta clipper and we can drop 40 F, 50 F in four hours or less, easy. Winter temps can range from the low 20s to the even lower -30s to -40s. (F). Summer time? 90s to 105 F, 110 F. Or give us a good ole Chinook and the temps can go the other way, from below zero up into the 40s or 50s.

    So, some one please tell me with this variability, what in the frascanoolie does it mean for it to be the “hottest” summer since … or the hottest summer in the last 150 years… Especially when the highest daily temperature all summer is 101 F (reached on one day, 7/24/14)and that is the only day over 100 F. Average max temp for this calendar year to Oct 1 is 60 F. Average mean temp is 47 F The lowest min temp is -28 F. (2/6/14 and that was three days of -20, -28,-19.)

    Just because some genius averages all the numbers for the year, does a little “homogenizing” and a little “pasteurizing” and who knows how much down right data massaging and declares it a warmer year than the last hundred or so … what does that mean in reality? With this kind of variability, how in the world can anyone say if it is truly warmer or colder or what? And what does it matter if it really, really, honestly is 5 deg F warmer? With this kind of variability, can a person even notice it? 105 degrees F in the summer is way to damn hot, no matter what. But 105 or 110 F, who is to notice? But this place has had those kinds of days as long as I have been around. Not every summer, but enough of them. And winter? -10, -20, -30 degrees F. (And That is BEFORE the windchill is figured in. And there is always windchill … brrr.)

    So, if there even is such a thing as global warming, how in the world is someone living in a place like I do even supposed to notice? Actually I would love it. Get rid of those doggone below zero temps … I could do without those real easy.

    But near as I can tell, it ain’t happening. It ain’t happening. It just ain’t happening.

    • wyoskeptic says:

      oops. Meant Sept 15, not Oct 1.

      Old timers disease kicks in again.

      • Alan Poirier says:

        Good point. The idea of a global average or mean is nonsense. The variability in a single day, week, month is huge. To worry about a 1 degree C increase is foolish, particularly when that increase will come at night and affect minimia.

  12. Of course, this whole thing is not really about science, it is about politics. Everything the Warmists push to stop/solve/fix/slow etc “climate change” is based on far left Progressive policies that mirror so many of the policies for other things. Raise taxes. Redistribution of wealth. Bigger and bigger Central Government, control of the lives of citizens, private entities, and economies. Moving more people into cities. Getting people to vote Democrat (or whatever leftist party it is in other countries). All while mostly refusing to make any substantive changes within their own lives, and even increasing their “carbon footprints”.

  13. I am expecting warming for this century to be about 40% of IPCC’s center track. I base this on things I saw in the data, and on how I see the feedbacks.

    As for the data: Among the major surface instrumental datasets, the one that I think has the best correlation with the satellite datasets for the lower troposphere is HadCRUT3. HadCRUT3 even seems to me as correlating better with the UAH and RSS lower troposphere datasets than HadCRUT4. And, HadCRUT3 shows less warming than HadCRUT4, GISS, and NCDC.

    Something else about HadCRUT3: It seems to show a ~60-65 year periodic item more than GISS and NCDC show. I used a very basic attempt of Fourier analysis on annual HadCRUT3 (UEA version) values, and found (IIRC) that in the 128 year period with annual values from 1877 to 2005, the best-fit sinewave had a period of 64 years, peak-to-peak amplitude of .218 degree C, and peaks at 1877, 1941, and 2005.

    1973 was a low point. The above best-fit sinewave accounts for about 40% of the reported warming from 1973 to 2005. And smoothed annual HadCRUT3 peaked in 2004-2005. HadCRUT3 from about 13.5 years ago to now has a flat linear trend.

    If all of the 1973-2005 warming reported in HadCRUT3 was honestly reported, and 60% of it was caused by manmade increase of greenhouse gases, then it seems to me that about 10% of the 1973-2005 warming was caused by manmade increase of methane, halogenated and partially halogenated hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and the like. This was largely halted in the 1990s.

    So, if HadCRUT3 is honest, then I think about 50% of the warming from 1973 to 2005 was caused by increase of CO2. Human activity added more CO2 to the atmosphere than the atmosphere gained, and nature removed some of it, because the atmosphere gained less CO2 than that produced by fossil fuel combustion. But global warming seems to be occurring at half or slightly less of the extent predicted by advocates of its existence.

    As for feedbacks: I was quick to be suspect of figures for feedbacks mentioned by IPCC in AR4.

    One feedback figure that I think IPCC overestimated in the positive direction is the cloud albedo feedback. I believe the cloud albedo feedback is positive, but much less so than IPCC likes to say. I don’t feel comfortable with IPCC saying its most probable value exceeds the most probable value for the surface albedo feedback.

    Why I think the cloud albedo feedback is positive, is because warmer temperatures and increased atmospheric concentration of water vapor increases the heat-moving power of convective clouds (where there are updrafts). So, I expect convective clouds to reduce their global coverage.

    This leads to the water vapor feedback. If a warmer world has less coverage by updrafting clouds, then its troposphere would have a reduced percentage of it occupied by humid ascending air, and an increased percentage of it occupied by dry, slowly sinking air. This would decrease the overall relative humidity of the troposphere.

    And, I don’t know to how much extent this makes the water vapor feedback less positive than it would be with constant relative humidity. My best guess, pulled from some hat, is that the sum of the water vapor feedback and the cloud albedo feedback is roughly equal to what the water vapor feedback would be with constant relative humidity. And, I think probably more likely to be less than greater.

    Then, there is the lapse rate feedback, a negative one. I see possibility that a couple things were neglected:

    1: That the lapse rate feedback was calculated for global temperature forcings other than a change of amount of non-H2O greenhouse gases. This feedback may be greater (more negative) when it applies to global temperature chance caused by a change of non-H2O greenhouse gases, because increasing greenhouse gases makes the atmosphere more convective, and makes the upper troposphere cooler.

    2: That the lapse rate feedback gets greater (more negative) as the world surface warms, for roughly the same reason. The atmosphere gets more convective, even though cloudy updrafts may decrease their surface coverage. With an increase of greenhouse gases, the top of the troposphere generally gets cooler, even while the surface generally gets warmer. I expect this effect to largely (but not fully) regulate temperatures in all levels of convective areas of the troposphere in the intertropical convergence zone. I expect global surface temperature change from a change of amount of greenhouse gases to be largely confined to other parts of the globe.

  14. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Roy

    Bob Carter claims no warming since 1958 according to radiosonde temperature data. Do you agree?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCISn1KfKQ

  15. Aaron S says:

    Last interglacial at ~120 kyr bp the sea level was 21 feet or 6 m higher than today and you can see this in the position of Pleistocene reefs in the Florida keys, Brazil, Mexico… globally. 90 myr bp the Cretacious interior seaway split North America in half. Much of the unconventional (require fracking) oil plays onshore US are playing these marine rocks. Climate varies naturally catastrophic is always relative and generally life thrives in warm Earth conditions. Models in other fields like organic chemistry or fluid dynamics never trust models until they are well calibrated. I fear this ‘blunder’ is political but will harm the credibility of science.

  16. Ansgar John says:

    Dr. Strangelove don’t outsource thinking, check the data of a random thermometer in the countryside anywhere on earth yourself and you’ll see temperatures have been increasing.

    • Dr. Strangelove says:

      The outsourced thinking of Bob Carter is better than your hand waving. The random thermometer in your countryside is not earth’s average. Might as well outsource your thinking.

  17. gbaikie says:

    –What if warming was set on fast forward, rather than pause? What if surface warming was progressing faster than 95% of the climate models had predicted, rather than slower than 95% of the models? How would the global warming establishment be playing it?

    After watching the IPCC crowd for the last 25+ years, I feel pretty confident they would be falling all over themselves declaring “it’s worse than we thought!” They would be adjusting the sensitivity of their models to produce even more warming.–

    Well, I think it’s possible we could see 2 C of warming in 100 years, but I think about 1 C is most likely in terms of century of warm in terms of warmest. I also think it could also be 0 C in century. So from 2000 to 2100, no measurable increase or decrease. But if zero increase or decrease we still probably going to lose more of the glaciers created in LIA, and could see arctic treeline go poleward [more than it has in last 100 years].
    In terms something to be worried about, it seems possible in 2000 to 2100 we could see a decline by .5 C or maybe as much return to turn of 20th century temperature.
    As I think the warming to date has been good news, I would view this as bad news. And millions of people could die as result of such cooling. Or millions will die compared to if temperatures had remained flat or increases by 1 C. Or seems safe to say such decrease in temperature will not increase global wealth. Though millions of people dying over decades of time, could be statistically matter people could argue about, and the expected improvements farming technology and forecasting weather, and all kinds variables [government choices, wars, etc] will make it quite murky.
    Or it’s not, new flash, 100,000 people wandered in field and frozen to death. Instead it will more energy used, higher prices of energy, higher costs of food, disruption in transportation, and etc. Plus it seems that cooler global temperatures in the past could be related to more severe storms.

    But point is if we get a bump in temperature like the 1998 El Nino, within 5 years, it will affect my view. I might think 1.5 C over the next century is reasonable. Though doesn’t change idea that we going to see 2 C before 2100- that would still very unlikely. But if only sort of kind of like the 1998 El Nino, if adds some imagination, would not cause any change in my view. But continuation of kind up and down we have had over last decade, will probably cause downgrade to highest possible of 2 C, to being 1.5 C over the century as highest possible, and not change as much as 1 C increase in century as reasonable possible. But think without any increase over next 5 years, I would tend to think cooling is more likely- especially if solar activity goes in direction as most are expecting to go.
    And not going to panic if in next 5 year there is steep down spike [the reverse of the 1998 El Nino]- I will wait another 5 years before the panicking. Though I would be quite surprised.
    But I generally expect new science findings as more likely to change my view in terms the future warming or cool. Though big volcanic eruption, like 1815, Tambora would trump most things. That seems it should merit immediate panic.

    • Shawn Torgerson says:

      My prediction is cooling in the medium term because solar cycles are weakening, and the AMO has peaked and will trend down for the next few decades. After that, it is hard to tell. Probably a rebound which will get the nut crowd excited, unless the movement is dead by then. Just random thoughts. Too many factors matched up in the late 1900’s that I believe gave a very distorted picture of long term trends. I hope the next ten years stops the climate change movement from driving us all into abject poverty. I’m actually optimistic!

  18. Steve Milesworthy says:

    “After watching the IPCC crowd for the last 25+ years, I feel pretty confident they … would be adjusting the sensitivity of their models to produce even more warming.”

    My first-hand observation of climate scientists that I know is that this is not true (and is not possible because it is nobody’s job to “adjust the sensitivity” of a model). They did not know the sensitivity of the model when they began the scenario runs and were somewhat defensive in their presentations when the model turned out to be at the higher end of the sensitivity range as compared with other CMIP5 models.

  19. Aaron S says:

    Salvatore, cool summary and I mostly agree with your list for modern climate. At a geologic scale the continental configuration shapes much of climate by altering currents. For example the large Antartic ice sheet developed with the circumpolar current somewhere around 30Ma (Im not exactly sure on the exact time this occured). Also, the Artic ice emerged with the closure of the central american isthmus at about 5 Ma, which changed the global circulation and added moisture to the Northern high latitudes that created the glaciers and they slowly grew over the next several million years. Another point is that cosmic rays form a higher percent of high clouds than low clouds. This ratio is significant bc it warms as a ghg, if it were just total clouds or more low clouds the impact would more likely to cool via albedo (depending on type and amount present) (Svensmark paper). So I consider the cosmic rays and interplay with the suns magnetic field (hale cycle) the dark horse in all of this. Finally a question… do you have a paper for the role of Earths magnetic field on climate? Everything i have ever seen shows that the magnetic lows at reversals in geologic history dont tend to impact much. So id be interested in learning about this bc it makes sense it should change climate. One of the sites i worked on during school had sediments deposited during a magnetic reversal, which was the first clue for the sites age. Then they found a Miocene aged rhinoceras and that really narrowed the time.

  20. Hoi Polloi says:

    “In that scenario, the natural ocean surface-cooling mechanism now in progress (if it exists) will eventually go back to normal, and surface warming will return with a vengeance. Just you wait and see.”

    This has already been predicted in the Bible:

    “When I heard,
    my belly trembled,
    my lips quivered at the voice …
    rottenness entered into my bones,
    and I trembled in myself,
    that I might rest (be hidden or escape)
    in the “Day of Trouble”…
    ( the coming “Apocalypse”)
    (Habakkuk 3:16)

  21. MyersKL says:

    I’m still waiting to see any hard evidence showing that human CO2 emissions, a minuscule portion of total CO2, cause any measureable global warming. The conclusions generated by manipulated general circulation models (GCMs) don’t count as “evidence.”

    The warming, if any, that might be caused by man-caused CO2 is simply overwhelmed by natural forces — solar fluctuations, oscean oscillations, volcanism and galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in cloud cover. All of the so-called “climate models,” tuned to produce a warming signal, either downplay or ignore these forces.

    Today’s climate science alarmists have become something akin to crystal ball gazers.

  22. Aaron this may help shed some light . Post above.

    I think the earth’s magnetic field does modulate galactic cosmic rays and impacts the climate that way and also may promote more geological activity to occur when weak, if an extreme solar disturbance takes place in an otherwise quite solar period.

    • ren says:

      I think that is right Vukcevic that the decline in magnetic activity of the sun may be related to the higher activity plate tectonics.

  23. AGW theory is absurdity in the face of alternative much more comprehensive theories (mine) which collaborate to a much greater degree with the historical climatic record and explain how at times the climate could change gradually while at other times in an abrupt fashion.

    It having to do with how items that exert an influence on the climate phase or don’t phase along with duration of time and degree of magnitude change of these items.

    Makes sense to me.

  24. Snowleopard says:

    Considering current global temperature in pause or hiatus reveals who controls thought. Both terms suggest the next change will be more warming. Rather than “fast forward”, I’m thinking that those not allowing for the possibility of some cooling before the next uptick might be in for a surprise.

    Looking at climate history and solar trend, it seems likely the “pause” is in fact a plateau or peak, and that the overall trend of this century will be cooling. If so, we should still get a cyclical warm pulse circa 2060, though perhaps not as warm as 1930s or 1990s. I’m wondering if the alarmists will still be around to hype that pulse for funds?

    Instead of getting excited about the unproved and unlikely hypothesis of unprecedented runaway AGW, those concerned about the future of humanity might more profitably spend their time preparing agricultural infrastructure for the almost certain end of the current interglacial.

  25. Aaron if the north and south magnetic poles of earth were to move to lower latitudes (like when excursion take place which is short of a magnetic flip) this would perhaps change the high cloud /low cloud dynamic due to galactic cosmic rays.

  26. EdMillerski says:

    “We all know that global warming has been on hiatus – set on pause – however you like to characterize the lack of significant warming, for over 15 years.”

    Except it is difficult to see this in the UAH data itself.

    The trend from 1979 to 1999 is 0.11 (C/decade), yet as of 8/2014 the trend has increased to 0.14. Thus, the rate of temperature increase has gone up by 27% during this hiatus period – not the temperatures mind you, the increase in temperatures has increased. In addition, the hottest decade of the entire UAH dataset is the current decade (8/2004 to 8/2014) – all this during a period with a “lack of significant warming”.

    Perhaps there is indeed a hiatus, though it is hard to justify based on the UAH data (v5.6) alone.

    • EdMillerski says:

      It does not validate what I posted because it does not address what I posted, namely the difficulty of justifying a warming hiatus using the UAH data record.

      • lewis says:

        When one picks the data one can get any result they desire. For instance, I’ll pick the years 79 to 98.5. Or better yet, from 98.5 to 2000.

        Yes, it may be warmer now than it was 40 years ago, on average, but if you examine the graph for the past 17 years and use that data, you will have a difficult time showing warming during recent, relative to man’s lifetime, times.

        It might also be pointed out that it is a lot colder now than at some times in the past.

        So what, please tell us, do you base your decision on which time frame to use. Remind yourself: the fact that man has recently begun to have information delivered by satellite does not mean that data is the only data. It just means that we have better information now than previously. It doesn’t do away with ice ages or anything else. This is true despite the fact that the scare mongers would have us believe only the temperatures of a certain time period are relevant.

        • EdMillerski says:

          Well, it appears many would like to choose the last 17 years as a time frame. As such, I’m simply stating the facts:

          Based on average temps in UAH v5.6, over the last 17 years it has gotten hotter, it’s getting hotter faster and it’s the hottest it’s ever been.

          Perhaps that will change and/or perhaps UAH v6.0 will show otherwise.

  27. Paul Homewood says:

    One should remember that the AMO is still at or close to its max.

    Once it starts to decline, NH temperatures will decline just as they did from 1945-75.

    The fact that the AMO has flatined for the last decade may help to explain the pause, along with the PDO switch, but the downward track of the AMO has not started yet. When it does, expect 20 years of declining temperatures, in the NH at least.

  28. darrylb says:

    If Roy or anyone else who has relative expertise would care to comment or answer some questions that I have at the end of the Hotly debated ‘Water Vapor Feedback and the G.W. Pause’
    I would very much appreciate it.
    Thank you in advance

  29. Ray says:

    “After watching the IPCC crowd for the last 25+ years, I feel pretty confident they would be falling all over themselves declaring “it’s worse than we thought!””

    I thought they have being saying that, despite the pause!

  30. JJ says:

    “After watching the IPCC crowd for the last 25+ years, I feel pretty confident they would be falling all over themselves declaring “it’s worse than we thought!” They would be adjusting the sensitivity of their models to produce even more warming.”

    No need to speculate “this is what they would do”. It is, in fact, exactly what they did.

    Warming was on fast forward 1980-1996 and the politicized “climate science” since has produced hypersensitive models tuned to various exaggerations of that warming.

  31. gallopingcamel says:

    You still hear that “It’s worse than we thought” meme even though the “Warming Catastrophe” has stalled for over 15 years.

    Roy Spencer is a rare “Climate Scientist” who dares to say the IPCC’s precious models are wrong.

    Here is the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis on which those models are based:
    “The selective absorption of the atmosphere is……………..not exerted by the chief mass of the air, but in a high degree by aqueous vapor and carbonic acid, which are present in the air in small quantities.”

    This fallacy has seduced so many wise men we need to look for a theory that better explains what is observed. It would be nice to find one that has some kind of mathematical basis.

    With this in mind I am much impressed by the work of Robinson & Catling.
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

  32. Aaron S says:

    Shawn that looks like a great book. Thanks for the heads up. I am ordering it off of amazon. I just read the reviews and the negative ones showed the exact point of the book. Some people claimed how could all the scientists in the field be wrong? Others claimed that the sun is already factored into the models. Reality is that all the scientists dont believe AGW is catastrophic, and the IPCC only considers tsi in models not UV bands, magnetics, cosmic rays, or solar feedbacks and there is ample empirical evidence for solar driven climate change beyond what the models include. If u actually read where the IPCC deals with solar processes they basically say… we dont fully understand svensmark’s research thus we ignored it altogether. They should have at least modeled it into uncertainty. This is like christmas when i was a kid… i am pumped to read this one.

  33. rick says:

    “…view nature as fragile…”

    Each year the earth goes through the seasonal cycle in which the sun’s attention switches between hemispheres. The mid-latitudes receive a temperature forcing of some 20 C. If nature were fragile, there would be general “systems run-aways”.

  34. Robin says:

    For more insight into funding of AGW research and politics, it might be more instructive to follow the money. For example, 2016 presidential candidates for 2016 like Hillary Clinton on the hunt for over half a billion in campaign funds, are already pandering to a cabal of foundation members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD), an umbrella organization created in 1987 by the U.S. Agency for International Development, an agency of the U.S. State Department. Originally, the CGBD’s purpose was to co-ordinate grantmaking in developing countries but over the years, that’s changed. Today, the CGBD has a primary focus on climate and energy-related issues and operates like an industry association for environmental funders, a back-office think-tank and collaboration hub. Membership is by invitation only. As of 2012, the CGBD’s 60 member foundations had more than US$50 billion in assets and combined annual expenditures of over US$3 billion.

    http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/

  35. NUTZ says:

    “vegan”
    N.
    old American Indian word; it means:
    BAD HUNTER

  36. This design is incredible! You definitely know how to keep
    a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start
    my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Fantastic job.
    I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that,
    how you presented it. Too cool!