During the period of the so-called hiatus, satellite measurements, summarized in several studies, indicate that there has been more radiant energy entering the atmosphere at the top of the atmosphere, than leaving, and that this is occurring at an accelerating rate. This indicates that heat has been added to the earth's climate system during the entire so-called hiatus. However, due to wind and ocean circulation changes, more radiant energy has been transferred from atmosphere to oceans than in past decades. Despite the appearance of a hiatus, sea levels have continued their accelerating rise, fueled largely by thermal expansion. 

There is many physical causes for inter-decadal changes. You should have a look at astronomic causes. For more information see Milankovitch cycles, it describes how earth and solar cycles can have an impact on the climate (for instance obliquity and inclination of our planet). Beyond that it is obvious that we have to take into account human impacts. But here you also have evidence that there are natural variations (like glacial cycles, ...). I think the 2013 IPCC report mention the main physical causes for global warming (and variations of temperatures).

@Kevin

Milankovitch cycles apply not for the decadal scale but for the millennial scale

Original question:

climate and climate change are defined for periods of AT LEAST 30 years. For shorter periods it is just the weather and the weather is different from year to year.

This depends for instance on the so-called el Nino phenomenon (look in Wikipedia).

And indeed when you want to read on Climate Change in the IPCC-report that Kevin mentioned:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Jingyong, despite the fact of slow changes of temperature around the Globe during last 14 years,  the Climate changes were very obvious in Russia - it is 2.5 faster comparing to the World average data. Last year was 2.0oC warmer of 30-years average. I am afraid that  melting  of Siberian permafrost and heating of Arctic waters will release huge amount of CH4 and this factor will be the main reason of climate changes during next decade. 

I would not call a period characterized by 14 out the 15 warmest years on record--since the last 100 years (read any of the recent releases by NASA, NOAA or the Japanese Meteorological agency)--one where warming is ''slowing down''.

What we are observing is completely in line with our basic understanding of the climate system, and with what models are predicting. The recent measurements showing that a lot of excess heat has in fact gone into the ocean rather than the atmosphere both explain the recent ''slower'' warming trends and are a huge cause for worry: that accumulated heat will continue to warm the planet for years, even if we were to stop emissions tomorrow.

Best,

Francesco

During the period of the so-called hiatus, satellite measurements, summarized in several studies, indicate that there has been more radiant energy entering the atmosphere at the top of the atmosphere, than leaving, and that this is occurring at an accelerating rate. This indicates that heat has been added to the earth's climate system during the entire so-called hiatus. However, due to wind and ocean circulation changes, more radiant energy has been transferred from atmosphere to oceans than in past decades. Despite the appearance of a hiatus, sea levels have continued their accelerating rise, fueled largely by thermal expansion. 

We do have stable temperature change in last 25 years (little less than we need for 30-years evidence). I can show data for 1891-2009, and 2010-2014 were even worser (some exeption was in rainy but still warm 2013). 

The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (NHTA) has been linearly increasing at a rate of 0.6 C per century since the Little Ice Age in 1600. Superimposed on this linear trend is a 61-year periodic variation of amplitude of 0.2 C.  We have now reached a temporal maxima (hiatus) in the NHTA in the last 18 years or so, hence an average global (and Northern Hemisphere) cooling of 0.01 C per year is predicted for the next 20 years or so and then the NHTA will increase yet again. This NHTA (or the global temperature anomaly (GTA)) has no overall correlation with anthropological CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (except for a short period from 1975 to 2000). Global warming due to the CO2 greenhouse gas effect has been overestimated by the IPCC by least a factor of 2.

Studies done all over the world have one thing in common that number of days having extreme weather are increasing along with rise in mean temperature. More warm ocean means more availability of water vapor in the atmosphere in lower troposphere. How the atmosphere will respond to the changes in basic characteristics of weather is still not clear. How the temperature and precipitation regimes will change under these conditions is anybody's guess. Whether these changes will be permanent, semi-permanent or part of natural cycle of climate is still not clear. What is the role of human being in the observed warming is still not quantified. We are in a phase of uncertainty as regards to climate change leading to groups of scientists and policy makers which are for and against Climate Change. Both have strong logic in favor or against this. Let us see how 2015 turns out to be.

Yes it will go on raising temp by 0.7 degree every year. Upto 2050 I think there wiil be no major damages to earth due to raise in temp.

The 18-year global warming hiatus will be likely followed by a modest short-term global cooling at an average rate of 0.01 C per year for the next 15-20 years or so followed by more rapid global warming at an average rate of ~0.02 C per year for the next 40 years or so. Then the ca. 60-year cycle will repeat. Since ca. 1600 (the end of the Little Ice Age), the Earth has been warming at a linear rate of 0.6 C per century. Superimposed on this linear trend is a 61-year periodic variation of amplitude 0.2 C.

@Jan

You have to provide references for your statements; I have not seen these anywhere

Dear Harry ten Brink: There are a number of papers published mainly by astrophysicists who used Fourier analysis to discern periodic trends in the Earth's past temperature variations. These periodic variations may correspond to harmonics of planetary conjunctions influencing solar tides and other astronomical cycles. The 61-year periodic variation may correspond to the first harmonic of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. This is not discussed in the IPCC reports. According to ice core data, atmospheric CO2 levels between 1800 and 1900 increased at a rate of ~0.25 ppm per year before anthropological CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion became more significant.

Dear Kenneth M Towe: Thank you for the reference to a Nature paper on the late Eocene elevated CO2 levels (760 ppmv, central estimate) and the surprising formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Jan

As for the conjunction of 2 planets

Is this astronomy or astrology?

Ken

Comparison of present-day climate with that of tens of millions of years ago seems unwarranted because the contents were oriented differently and thus air currents etc

Jan

The 60 years is discussed in IPCC!? but as you mention when experts from outside filed move into a new area first thing is to study the basics of that new field; as an aerosol guy I have seen astronomers moving in and having a very different notion of the real aerol as compared to the intergalactic dust clouds they were familiar with. But agreed they were fabulous in the basics of light-scattering by aerosol particles. 

Harry ten Brink query: "Is this astronomy or astrology?"

Answer: Who knows? The orbital motion of the earth and moon around their barycentre and earth's daily rotation cause tides. Solar tides caused by planetary motion may modulate solar output according to some astrophysicists. The various solar cycles appear to be well correlated with various planetary conjunctions - does not prove causality relationship, just evidence.

Jan

Science is to understand the phenomena and there is a very logical explanation for the increase in temperature: greenhouse gases. Exactly those keep the earth livable at a moderate temperature instead of a deep-freeze. And we are talking about the temperature at ground level.

complication is that the most important greenhouse gas is water and that an increase in temperature leads to increased evaporation and thus of more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is a multiplication factor.

Hi Jan,

Do you have any references to articles linking solar cycles and planetary conjunctions? I have always suspected that there is a link but have not come across any evidence to support my hypothesis.

Harry ten Brink

There has been a number of recent articles (from reputable climate researchers) that claim that the greenhouse gas warming due to CO2 has been been overestimated by the IPCC by least a factor of 2 (and more). A few maverick physicists have even claimed that the the greenhouse gas effect in the Earth's atmosphere is entirely fictitious due to the inappropriate application of the Beer-Lambert and Stefan-Boltzmann laws.

There has been worrisome developments in the stratosphere that will have a  huge impact on the global temperature anomaly .... thinning O3 layer and increasing H2O. Even though halons had been banned, the O3 layer has not recovered to its pre 1970's level.

According to one suspect news story about 5 years ago, there is also global warming on Mars. Somehow, the CO2 levels on Earth effect the temperature on Mars. I search the literature to find out more whether or not there is global warming on Mars in parallel with the Earth.

Alastair Bain McDonald

I send you the references to to articles linking solar cycles and planetary conjunctions, shortly. What I understand there is no hard proof ... just empirical observations and speculation.

Jan,

The global warming on Mars is caused by its atronomical cycles, just as Milankovitch cycles cause global warming and cooling here on Earth. CO2 is not the only factor setting global temperatures. But we have now increased the level of CO2 by over 40% during the last 200 years. With such a large increase it is not surprising that it is beginning to have more effect than all the other variables put together.

Looking forward to reading the articles.

Jan

Your answer to me is just qualitative

1. Provide references

2. names of the "reputable" climate researchers

3. what is wrong with the law of Lambert-Behr or SB ??

Ice ages cyclically occur roughly every 10,000 years, actually due around 2050.  As there is temperature rise every year, simultaneously there will be a drop in temperature of earth which might lead to the ICE AGE in future.

Ref.:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

Added to previous answer:

Ice ages have two periods - 1. Glacial period and 2. Inter glacial period

Mostly we are in interglacial period which might occur every 10000 years.

Glacial periods might involve millions of years to occur.

Rajakumar

What does this have to do with the "pause" in temperature in the past 0.1% of a glacial period, as the questioner asks?

Kenneth,

You say "we have increased the atmospheric level of CO2 by 10% since 1998...and the number of people causing it by 20%. Should be no surprise that the environment has changed with seven billion of us on our way to 10 billion. What did we expect? The climate to stay still?" But the climate has stayed still. We call it a hiatus.

But the question is not about the cause of global warming or of the hiatus. It is what will happen next?

There is the possibility that this could be similar to another branch of Earth Science - earthquakes.  The pressure in a fault builds up until there is a sudden relase of energy and an earthquake happens. The same could be happening with the climate, with the hiatus corresponding to the period between earhquakes. The increase in CO2 is building up a stress in the climate system that will be relased when a tipping point is passed and an abrupt warming ensues.

In a non-linear system such as that we have with the climate, that seems a more likelt outcome to me, than 1) entry into a new ice age, 2) a continuation of the hiatus, 3) a gentle rise in tempeature similar to that which happened during the 20th Century.

Harry ten Brink

Here are my responses to your queries.

1. Provide references – overestimation of the greenhouse effect of CO2

Ans) See these examples

(a) H-G Lim et al.

(b) F. Gervais

(c) G. Gerlich and R.D. Tscheuschner

(d) G. Kramm and R. Dlugi

(f) N. Scafetta (Scafetta has also published a number of articles on the inferred astronomical cycles governing global warming and cooling episodes.

(g) C.Monckton et al. (The lead author apparently has connections to the Heartland think-tank)

2. names of the "reputable" climate researchers

Ans) I decline to provide names of "reputable" climate researchers.

3. what is wrong with the laws of Lambert-Behr or SB ??

Ans) There is nothing wrong with these laws. The issue is when they are applied improperly as proclaimed by (c) Gerlich and Tscheuschner and (d) Kramm and Dlugi. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner article has been strongly challenged and criticized by leading climate scientists as mentioned in the Kramm and Dlugi article. On the other hand, (d) Seinfeld is a strong supporter of the CO2 greenhouse gas effect in causing global warming.

Kramm and Dlugi state: “Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.”

(a) H-G Lim et al., Contributions of solar and greenhouse forcing during the present warm period. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. (2014) v126, pp71-79

b) F. Gervais, Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B (2914) v28 (20 pages)

(c) Gerlich, G. and Tscheuschner, R.D.

Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B (2009) v23, pp275-364

(d) Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact

Natural Science, v3, pp971-998 (2011)

(e) J.H. Seinfeld; Insights on Global Warming

Environmental and Energy Engineering (2011) v57, pp3259-3284

(f) ) N. Scafetta, Comment on “Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2”. International Journal of Modern Physics B (2014) v28 (2 pages)

(g) Monckton, C.; Soon, W. H.; Legates, D.; Briggs, W., Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Sci. Bull. (2015) v60, pp122-135.

Alastair Bain McDonald · 3.78

Hi Jan,

Do you have any references to articles linking solar cycles and planetary conjunctions? 

Yes. Please see:

N. Scafetta, Comment on “Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2”. International Journal of Modern Physics B (2014) v28 (2 pages)

(Scafetta has also published a number of articles on the inferred astronomical cycles governing global warming and cooling episodes.

F. Gervais, Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B (2914) v28 (20 pages)

@Jan

Lim discusses the warming since 1891 and indicate that greenhouse warming is just more important. However, greenhouse concentrations of greenhouse gases are only significant in the period since 1950-1961. So the conclusion must be that the recent warming is mostly due to the gases

Gervais: he believes in the unproven 60-year (ocean?) cycle

Klamm/Dlugi: has been amply refuted as a hoax

John Seinfeld: the leading atmospheric physico-chemist (but not a climatologist)

Scafetta: behind a paywall and in a journal that is not known for contributions on climatology

Harry ten Brink

Thank you for your valuable insights on questionable articles on climatology.

My field of research from 1977 to 2000 was chemical physics using mass spectrometry before switching to the analytical chemistry and environmental fields. I have much to learn about atmospheric greenhouse gas effects and climate.

Jan

What kind chemical physics? I made a PhD in the field

And I certainly did not want to lecture you on climatology and hop you still enjoy it. Did you study the IPCC report?

Scafetta, Nicola. 2010. ‘Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and Its Implications’. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72 (13): 951–70. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015.   which argues that the offset of the centre of the Sun from the barycentre of the solar system affects the radiation reaching the Earth causing a variation in global surface temperture (GST) over a range of 0.4C. Since temperature has risen by 0.7C over the 20th Century then that factor can only have caused approximately half that warming.   If GST followed Scafetta's model exactly we would now be cooling but 2014 was the warmest year on record. So it seems that the CO2 now overrides the Scafetta effect, and when it begins again to reinforce the CO2 effect we will be in deep trouble, especially since by htat time the CO2 concentration will be even higher than it is today!   Cheers, Alastair.

Thanks Jan,

Your references led me to

Harry ten Brink

Q1: Did you study the IPCC report?

Ans) Yes in part ,,, 2014 IPCC AR5 ... Synthesis Report

From the data presented  (in Figure 6.1) on atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, 98.7% of all CO2 emissions are removed by all sinks; anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 emissions contribute 3.8% and of that only 0.05% accumulates in the atmosphere.

Q2: What kind chemical physics? 

Ans) Mainly gas-phase ion-molecule thermochemistry and kinetics using high pressure mass spectrometry, e.g.,

Szulejko, J. E.; McMahon, T. B., Progress toward an Absolute Gas-Phase Proton Affinity Scale. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 7839-7848.

Li, C.; Ross, P.; Szulejko, J. E.; McMahon, T. B., High-pressure Mass Spectrometric Investigations of the Potential Energy Surfaces of Gas-phase SN2 Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 9360-9367.

Before that

Szulejko, J. E.; Mendez Amaya, M.; Morgan, R. P.; Brenton, A. G.; Beynon, J. H., A Method for Calculating the Shapes of Peaks Resulting from Fragmentations of Metastable Ions in a Mass-spectrometer .1. Peak Shapes Arising from Single Valued Kinetic-energy Releases. Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A 1980, 373, 1-11.

Holmes, J. L.; Szulejko, J. E., Vibrational Fine-structure in the Collisionally Induced Charge Reversal and Fragmentation of OH- Ions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1984, 106, 292-296.

Alastair Bain McDonald

Thank you for your comments on Scafetta's  ‘Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and Its Implications’.

I analysed the NOAA 1880 - 2014 global temperature anomaly (GTA) data by fitting it to a linear function and a cosine function in MS-XL by "eyeballing". Later, I found a similar analysis in the literature. My "eyeballed" fitting is reasonable. The results I obtained were:

(a) linear part .... 0.6 C rise per century. The global temperature anomaly (GTA)  has been increasing at this rate since the Little Ice Age. irrespective of the ever increasing anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

(b) cosine part: amplitude = 0.2 C and period = 61 years. The amplitude = 0.2 C is in excellent with Scafetta's finding of "variation in global surface temperature (GST) over a range of 0.4C". This accounts for most of the GTA increase during the 1970 - 2000 period. Afterwards, there will a slight global cooling trend to about 2030 and global warming will resume in earnest based on empirical analysis.

Taking points (a) and (b) and the ever increasing CO2 levels of recent  together, leads to your point

"... but 2014 was the warmest year on record. So it seems that the CO2 now overrides the Scafetta effect, and when it begins again to reinforce the CO2 effect we will be in deep trouble, especially since by that time the CO2 concentration will be even higher than it is today! "

Cheers,

Jan

Jan

IPCC Fig 6.1 shows the residence time of emitted CO2 in the atmosphere?!

Where is your percentage coming from?

Harry ten Brink

Query: Where is your percentage coming from?

Please see this URL:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf (accessed Nov. 12, 2014, Feb. 01, 2015)

Figure 6.1. Simplified schematic of the global carbon cycle. Numbers represent reservoir mass, also called ‘carbon stocks’ in PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) and annual carbon exchange fluxes (in PgC yr–1). Black numbers and arrows indicate reservoir mass and exchange fluxes estimated for the time prior to the Industrial Era, about 1750 (see Section 6.1.1.1 for references). Fossil fuel reserves are from GEA (2006) and are consistent with numbers used by IPCC WGIII for future scenarios. The sediment storage is a sum of 150 PgC of the organic carbon in the mixed layer (Emerson and Hedges, 1988) and 1600 PgC of the deep-sea CaCO3 sediments available to neutralize fossil fuel CO2 (Archer et al., 1998). Red arrows and numbers indicate annual ‘anthropogenic’ fluxes averaged over the 2000–2009 time period. These fluxes are a perturbation of the carbon cycle during Industrial Era post 1750. These fluxes (red arrows) are: Fossil fuel and cement emissions of CO2 (Section 6.3.1), Net land use change (Section 6.3.2), and the …………..

Jan

I was referring to the fig 6.1 in the pdf from 2013 on the site of IPCC; this is now box1 fig 6.1

What you have there is the total reservoir of CO2 and that is not the issue:

The greenhouse effect is exerted by the CO2 in the atmosphere. This s the box1 fig 6.1 that shows what really happens with CO2 emitted in the atmosphere over the years. Certainly the CO2 emitted will be rapidly be taken up by land and upper ocean but an equivalent nr of molecuels will be exchanged. It is only by deep ocean penetration that the extra CO2 is lost from the layers that are in the atmosphere or in direct exchange with the atmosphere

Currently, several possible physical causes have been proposed to explain  the so-called warming hiatus, including more heat uptake by lower-layer oceans, increased stratospheric water vapour, decreased solar energy output, and others. If, indeed, more heat have gone into deep oceans in this period, global mean temperature may rise more much rapidly than ever before when the heat is released from the oceans in the future. 

I would be very careful with the pause:

Pause since when? 1998 was a special year as you mention yourself. for real changes an average has be taken over a number of years. Climate as defined by WMO is the average over a period of at least 30 years. So one can only compare such periods. One can also use a 30-year average to look for a consistent change

Correction/addition

I meant 1998 was exceptional due to the strongest El Nino in history. So one cannot compare temperatures with that special year.

Onset of a Little Ice Age after ca. 2020??

An English translation of a 2013 paper in Russian [1]  republished by the Science and Public Policy Institute [2] predicts the onset of a Little Ice Age after ca. 2020 after a ~20-year global warming hiatus. This conclusion was based on analysis of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) temporal variation in conjunction with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to take implicit account of: albedo, emissivity, and enthalpy change at the ocean/atmosphere interface. The ocean was assumed to be the major heat sink for solar irradiance.

[1] H. Abdussamatov, Grand Minimum in the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice, Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, October 2013. ISSN: 978-5-44690-122-7

[2] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/grand_minimum_of_the_total_solar_irradiance_leads_to_the_little_ice_age.html (accessed Feb 02, 2015)

H. Abdussamatov is a well-known climate sceptic rejected by main-stream climate scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov).

Jan

what kind of scientist is he in molecular physics? You can judge this too with your background

From the wikipedia site you linked us to:

He states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short.

Harry ten Brink

Q1: what kind of scientist ... I don't know.

Q2: However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short.

Jan's quick answer:

There are two effects here

(a) as the CO2 molecules ascend, they lose translational energy, so they are "cooled" translationally. This is independent of the mean free path

(b) There is also the question of the Einstein absorption and emission factors for CO2 interacting with the photon radiation field. This will lead to thermal equilibrium with the photon radiation field in the long-term. 

Jan

@ a CO2 is embedded in the air and equilibrate almost instantaneously with the surroundings

@b What is the question on the absorption and emission strength of CO2? Also here the processes are fast and lead to rapid equuilibration

Marotzke, Jochem, and Piers M. Forster. “Forcing, Feedback and Internal Variability in Global Temperature Trends.” Nature 517, no. 7536 (January 29, 2015): 565–70. doi:10.1038/nature14117.   I am not convinced. It appears to me to be an attempt to paper over the fact that the models are not doing a good job. Nor am I convinced by the idea that heat in the deep ocean accounts for the hiatus. How can a change in the balance of radiation at the TOA affect the deep ocean?

A paper has just been published in Nature arguing that hiatus is just an artefact of the chaotic nature of climate:

Alastair Bain McDonald

Your comment:  It appears to me to be an attempt to paper over the fact that the models are not doing a good job.

A comment from friend/colleague working in the wind-energy sector: “The climate data is, at best, a very over-simplified guess. My main concern with modeling is that many of the climate model builders I have spoken with have told me out-right that if they cannot reliably model an effect, they simply ignore it.”

Harry ten Brink

Your comment:  Klamm/Dlugi: has been amply refuted as a hoax

My response: Please view this Wikipedia page for more insight ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerhard_Kramm

Kenneth M Towe

I read a 1930 newspaper article that reported that the Antarctica icecap was melting at a rapid rate. A ca. 1905 newspaper story reported that the US east coast had record high summer temperatures and the new- fangled coal burning electricity generating stations were blamed for the excessive temperatures.

Jan

I studied the Wikipedia-link that you gave but WHAT insight should I gain from it?

Jan previous entry went before adding this

discussion on K&D with contributions by Gerhard Kramm

http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/01/05/kramm-dlugi-on-dodging-the-greenhouse-bullet/

of course not, temperatures are to fall, I have writen and documented and discovered the mechanisms driving climate variability to be of solar origin

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos

with my approach you can predict solar cycles for the next several thousands of years for as long as you have astronomical data since I have documented the planetary gravitational tidal origin of solar cycles and solar wind

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos

there are climate inertia and feedback mechanisms producing short-term variability but the trend for the next 100 years is downwards. long term it's completely of solar origin.

I have not done research on the inertia and feedback mechanisms, so just guessing, streams like nao and el-nino, sea level, precipitation volume and ice-melting should be between them.

if you are interested though we can research together in specific topics, I would like some new areas of research, do you have anything in the Smithsonian?

With the NOAA global temperature for 2016 now available the hiatus is certainly gone and looking at the data together it is hard to see how 1998-2012 are not just variations on the temperature trend.

Quantitatively I see the same slope in the temperature 1970-1998 and 1998-2016 as well as 1970-2016.

In this dataset it seems the warming rate 1910-1940 (0.10 °C/decade) was hardly more than half of 1975-1998 (0.18 °C/decade) which is again similar to the entire period 1970 until now.

T-periods of 30 years are just ONE climate period. It is unscientific to assess a rate within one climate period, PERIOD; never mind Jones.

Your are correct about the 30 years periods. "never mind Jones."

Based on my findings, it is the changes in the solar irradiance cycle that is the primary cause of the cyclical variation of temperature on Earth, as well as drives El Nino/La Nina and PDO cycles etc. Contrary to popular theory, the solar maximum of 1914-1975, is forced most of the temperature change we're experiencing today, amplified by positive and negative feedback mechanisms, predominantly water vapour, Clouds, CO2 and aerosols. The solar optimum of 1976-2003 will continue to drive the rising trend of SST and stronger El Nino/La Ninas between 2016-2043. At this point, equilibrium will be reached and the effects of the current solar minimum will set in, driving a significant decrease in temperatures.

The reason for the delayed response of temperature relative to changes in solar irradiance is due to the maximum lag of 41years cause by the ocean's thermal inertia.  This therefore means that the Oceans are heated from above (the sun), but Earth's atmosphere is heated from below (the oceans); GHG especially water vapour and Co2 trap the heat emitted from the ocean and re-radiate it downwards; atmospheric circulation and ocean currents redistribute the moisture and warmth around the World. Yesterday, I stumbled on a study by Hansen (2005) which estimates the climate lag time is between 25 to 50 years (In my study, the best correlations b/w TSI and SST) occur at the 24.5, 34.5 and 41.5 year lags).

This is a project i've been working on since 2013, and still on it. recently, I found a recent study by a team of researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern.

Their "Research findings using elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years; For the first time, a significant effect is apparent; They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum".

The problem with this study is that it fails to understand the concept of equilibrium in the climate system brought about by the interaction between solar irradiance, ocean's thermal inertia and earth's feedback mechanisms. Moreover, without knowledge of when the next solar minimum is expected, it remains adamant to the point that the 0.5oC drop in temperatures will do little to stop the run-away AGW. 

With regards to the hiatus, results of one of my ongoing project in the South China Sea shows that it very well exists but its strength depends on when you decide to begin your observation. Other regional studies, e.g Belkin & Lee (2014) find not a pause, but a decline in SST between 1999 and 2014.

I have also noted that the recent hiatus is over, following the 2015/2016 El Nino, and we should be getting ready for a new period of intense heating from 2016-2043, interspersed by shorter hiatuses. Therefore, better take precautions and prepare for more intense warming and associated climatic changes.

The cause of the pause: 1998 temperature peak was followed by a negative phase of PDO, driven by a very weak solar irradiance cycle of 1965-1975.

In contrast, the 2015/2016 peak coincides with the ascending limb of the positive phase of PDO and a very strong positive phase of the solar irradiance cycle. Consequently, the likelihood of intense warming is very high  (see file 1 & 3)

While adapting to the warming, as well as putting measures in place to mitigate the potential intensification of floods, drough, fire hazards etc at regional and smaller scales, preparations should also be ongoing for the expected cooling about 2-3 decades from now.

Cheers

Ken

Again what should these sentences mean from a clipping from what?

Scientific discussion is on full reports including uncertainties. Popular statements belong to popularistic blogs

20 years can be considered with some tweaking as ONE climate period so what about it?

It was warmer than previous periods of similar lengths; still given one needs 2 climate periods to see a difference. And again, it is only since the sixties that there is more accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere to make a difference any differences in the climate-T record before that date are natural

1. Around 1960 the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are above pre-industrial levels at a concentration in which it should be affecting overall temperatures according to the most simple physical laws.

As for 20 years: seems a little low and in view of a 60-year ocean cycle I prefer a 30 year period or even a 60 year period

2. Start of a period must NOT be fixed scale should be a smoothed sliding 30?

/60 year average giving real insight

Additional reply to Ken

Around 1960 is a good reference point because measurements are well-documented and this is why the average temperature is always given as an anomaly against such a period; often 1950-1980. Even in 1980 CO2-levels were comparatively low

no-one worries because it is the anomaly that [any climatologist is interested

and to repeat an earlier entry by someone else:

differences in measured values are much more accurate than "absolute" values

Ken,

Look it up for yourself. You won't believe what we tell you anyway.

en

What are we getting now

This here is RESEARCHgate not PEOPLEgate

and I do not give a darn what my idol Jim Hansen says in a people's magazine