For context, this is the "furious denial" Longy is referring to:
Quote:Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
Note particularly the response to question 2 - where the pause is specifically acknowledged and said to be consistent with simulations.
This is Longy's great "furious denial" of a pause
The "embarassing" backpedaling is allegedly in the report Longy pointed me too earlier. It discusses possible explanations of the "recent pause" in surface warming.
As anyone who has read the report would know, it is
entirely consistent with what the MET claimed a year earlier to the daily fail reporter. Most importantly, the report does
NOT acknowledge any pause in overall global warming - only the pause in surface temperature rise - which as anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate science will explain, constitutes only a tiny fraction of overall global heat content.
Hence as the report states:
Quote:It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet. Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases has continued unabated
radiative forcing by greenhouse gases has continued unabated....
exactly as they had claimed to the mail reporter.
Hint for those having difficulty grasping basic climate science: pause in global
surface warming is *NOT* the same as a pause in overall net global warming.
I'm sorry for your confusion Longy, hope this clears things up for you.
Forum
Pages: 
