Would you consider this a good write-up on recent temperature trends?

Gaining more knowledge in as to how the micormechanisms of our climate have a short term impact on the global climate is one of the best ways to improve the climate models. However, I am not certain that this is what they are trying to accomplish here. Is it really climate sensitivity they are seeing over the past 15 years, or is it just the short term noise within the natural variations of the climate? Any 15 year period you choose will likely be more associated with the noise within the climate than as an indicator of where the climate is headed over the longer term (20 - 30 years). Using their graphics, I am able to chose nearly any starting point I wish to do so on their "Global Surface Temperatures, 1970 - 2013" graphic and show a cooling, stagnant or warming trend over a 15 year period. But, they are only looking at the last 15 years to show a slower rate of warming than the overall trend since 1970. When you do go back to the 20 - 30 years you will still see that the same, long term trend would still be on the same incline. Are they looking at sensitivity, or noise? Unknown at this time and it is far too early to make any claims either way. So why do they suggest sensitivity? - "

With upcoming release of IPCC Fifth Assessment Reports beginning late in September, there will be a sharp focus on specific issues like projected sea-level rise but also on broader issues like ***CLIMATE SENSITIVITY*** and the decade-and-a-half-long slow-down in the rate of overall warming. Let’s begin by examining that slow-down in depth, and just what is involved in taking Earth’s temperature.". The highlighting of the words "climate sensitivity" is mine.

The title: "Examining the Recent Slow-Down in Global Warming"

What I take issue with here is how can it be titled this way when their own graphics, "Ocean Temperatures at Depth, 1970-2013" shows a large increase in heat content of the deeper ocean layers? Are not our oceans also a part of our globe? Perhaps what they are trying to say is that the oceans are the major heat sinks, and they are, and that this will lower the sensitivity of the surface temperatures in the long run. Perhaps, but sooner or later, that heat energy will return to the surface. Then what will happen?

At least the author of the article, Zeke Hausfather, has some credentials within the scientific community and climate sensitivity does need to be better understood. I merely suggest that it is far too early to make any claims on the global climate over the past 15 years as to being due to climate sensitivity or just some more noise the climatologist must factor in. And, to Zeke's credit, he does seem to irritate Lil' Anthony Watts some - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-f... - Keep up the good work, Zeke! :)

Are the Models Reliable?

Present forecasting methods “oversimplify poorly understood climate processes” and “simply ignore others,” say critics. They also point to the inconsistencies in computed projections. One scientist who participated in the IPCC discussions said: “There are some p. 7of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why.”*

Some would argue, of course, that using an element of doubt as justification for doing nothing is gambling with the future. “How would we explain this to our children?” they say. Whether the climate models are accurate or not, we can be certain that the earth is in serious trouble. Its life-sustaining environment is being assaulted by pollution, deforestation, urbanization, and the extinction of species, to name just a few factors that no one can successfully dispute.

GLOBAL WARMING presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced,” asserted the October 2007 edition of National Geographic. If we are to meet that challenge successfully, said the magazine, we need to “move quickly and decisively—and with a maturity we’ve rarely shown as a society or a species.”

Will such maturity rise to the fore? Working against it are many factors: apathy, greed, ignorance, vested interests, the scramble for wealth in developing lands, and the business-as-usual philosophy of millions who want to maintain a high-energy-consuming lifestyle.

An ancient prophet of God gives us a realistic appraisal of our capacity to solve our ethical, social, and governmental problems. He wrote: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Mankind’s tragic history underscores those words. And today, although armed with significant developments in science and technology, we are faced with previously unimaginable threats. So how confident can we be that tomorrow will be better?

It is true that there has been a lot of talk about tackling climate change and other harmful trends, but little has been done. For example, how did the nations respond in 2007 when the Northwest Passage opened up for navigation for the first time? An editorial in New Scientist magazine answers: “With an unseemly scramble to lay claim to the exposed chunks of continental shelf so they [could] drill for more oil and gas.”

Nearly 2,000 years ago, the Bible accurately foretold that humans would reach the point where they would be “ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) Clearly, the world needs both a leader who has the wisdom and power to achieve the desired goals and subjects who will submit to him. Could a sincere and brilliant political leader or scientist fill that role? The Bible answers: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.”—Psalm 146:3.

A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances

No not really. The first graph shows 12.5 years of global temperatures for GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC and all show a negative trend in temperature over the period, how could you possibly call that slow warming? The author is obviously in denial or is incapable of understanding statistics..

EDIT:

Jeff

It has not warmed over land, the temperature has slowly started cooling over land and sea just as it was predicted to do 20 years ago. And ten years from now it will be considerably cooler than now, and the last decade will be known as the decade the warming stopped, not the decade the warming slowed. People will be ROFLTAO when they read that article ten years from now. And ocean heat content, really. The warming stopped, so lets look at joules as a climate metric, really!!!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2...

They lost me right off. Their charts start at that magical date, 1970, which is end of the cooling trend that started in 1936.

If they start their charts in the 1930's, there would be not significant warming at all between then and now.

To think that the alleged degree of rise in the atmosphere is heating the ocean measurable is absurd when you consider that the ocean has 250 times the thermal mass of the atmosphere.

Try opening your eyes.

I wouldn't say this is a good write up, but certainly interesting, it shows they are now considering solar, AMO PDO which before were thrown out as rubbish.

Interesting how the two warmest periods 1930ish and 1990ish were when both the AMO and PDO were positive, with the PDO negative and the AMO going to become negative sometime, it looks like the climate is going to get cooler before it warms.

I dont go with ocean heat thing, thats just the PDO and AMO doing their thing,

I disagree with small Volcanoes, it is known for volcanoes to effect the climate they have to blast gas and ash into the stratosphere, you can see volcano effects here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/m...

A decline in ocean sst's would indicate a reduction in solar radiation reaching earths surface.

A decline in Stratospheric water vapor, isn't CO2 supposed to make it go up.

All in all what I see here, is very little effect from CO2 and a lot of effects from natural causes.

With the PDO negative and the AMO at some time in the future to go negative, Solar in a minimum phase, I predict it is going to get colder and stay colder for quite some time

It's funny how you are so concerned about energy imbalances in our atmosphere (caused by CO2 emissions) and it being the reason for the warming, but I never once hear (read) about population increases using this excess energy. I'm not just talking about people. I'm talking about biomass, other mammals, plus everything else that is living and has increased. Why is there 10 times more ants by volume than people? How many ants were there in 1850 and was it the same ratio? What about krill? How many were there in 1850? We know that polar bears have increased now, so how did all of that happen when AGW proponents say that we are destroying the planet and causing it to warm on a dangerous or catastrophic level?

Preponderance of the evidence suggests that the extra CO2 is helping to create all of this life since we know that life here on earth is carbon based. How else is the carbon suppose to circulate?

Jeff - You base your alarmism on extra energy in our atmosphere causing it to warm, but I say there is compelling evidence that more life is being created with that extra CO2 in our atmosphere. The warming that it has caused is very nominal (it peaked in 1998 at almost 0.8C above the established norm and hasn't been back to that level since).

Temperature is less of a problem than you portray. When the PDO and AMO start going into a negative phase together and the sun remains to be "sleeping" or "relaxing" in its sunspot activity, then we may be in for a stretch of cooling that may be intolerable to many.

Additionally :

Just remember that CO2 is heavier than O2 and pretty much stays in the lowest part of the 'lower' troposphere where the biosphere and all other mammals use it frequently and often.

Jeff tries, sort of, but no Kewpie Doll. We seldom ever get a summer here in the Pacific Northwest, I haven't been able to raise tomatoes outside the greenhouse for the past 4 years... what's up with THAT warming? The fact is after reviewing numerous scientific sources, specifically Malkoviches earth orbit studies and Tschumi and Stauffer Vostok Ice Core studies, Earth experiences substantial climate change on 100,000 year intervals and right now we are on a climate upswing...meaning in general: Warming. These cycles have gone on uninterrupted for over 6 Million years. To solidify that fact we are just getting over an ice age (we were taught that in grade school, remember?) Sooo, "Global Warming" is real, but not for the reasons the leftist eco-freak libtards proclaim. Our science community has in fact arrived at a rational figure for mans contribution to "Global" greenhouse gasses, and it is a whopping 3%. Reduce current fossil fuel usage one of those percentage points and half the populations of the 3rd World will starve. Beware the term "denier", it is a flaunt in the face of rational scientific fact.

"Although the rise in global temperatures has slowed in recent years, it is not obviously divergent from the underlying long-term trend."

This statement doesn't seem scientific to me. It is rather meaningless.

"On the other hand, there are no periods with similar temperature stagnation other than ones associated with a major volcano (e.g. Pinatubo in 1992 or El Chichón in 1982)."

This is cherry picked (it refers the previous graph which only goes back to 1970). Go back another 30 years and there is indeed a similar period.

Overall, it seems fairly balanced with a slight tendency towards pro-AGW although not egregious. If you put some things out of mind like what I pointed out above, I think my overall assessment is that it makes a pretty good case for climate sensitivity being closer to 2C than 3C.

It's all in the future to reduce uncertainty. If temperatures start climbing at a rate like the late 20th century, then 3C is more likely. If temperatures continue flat or fall, then maybe even 2C is high.

No, it is a desperate attempt to try to explain why they were so wrong before by making excuses.

The author says

<<Let’s begin by examining that slow-down in depth, and just what is involved in taking Earth’s temperature>>

It is all about trying to get people to forget that their predictions failed, their models failed, and the lines drawn in the sand were crossed and redrawn and recrossed and redrawn etc. Instead of making excuses, it would nice if they simply discussed what is known and not known.

<<<JimZ continues to ignore science and measurements. Not surprising. >>> And Jeff M continues to pretend that anything he thinks is science and anything he disagrees with politically is not science. OK so it isn't the worst piece of propaganda to come around. My earlier comments still stand.