The results in terms of global-average surface temperature are shown in Fig 1 below:
In Fig 1 a, you can see how well the POGA H global average surface temperature matches the observations particularly since about 1965 (note central Pacific Ocean temperatures have increasing and significant uncertainty prior to 1980).
What is mind blowing is Figure 1b, which gives the POGA C simulations (natural internal variability only). The main ‘fingerprint’ of AGW has been the detection of a separation between climate model runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. The detection of AGW has emerged sometime in the late 1970′s , early 1980′s.
Compare the temperature increase between 1975-1998 (main warming period in the latter part of the 20th century) for both POGA H and POGA C:
POGA H: 0.68C (natural plus anthropogenic)
POGA C: 0.4C (natural internal variability only)
I’m not sure how good my eyeball estimates are, and you can pick other start/end dates. But no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.
Like I said, my mind is blown. I have long argued that the pause was associated with the climate shift in the Pacific Ocean circulation, characterized by the change to the cool phase of the PDO. I have further argued that if this is the case, then the warming since 1976 was heavily juiced by the warm phase of the PDO. I didn’t know how to quantify this, but I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, and hence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW.
Although this was not a specific conclusion of the paper (the focused on the period 2002-2012), the conclusion jumps out from their Fig 1 (and my eyeball analysis).
More at WUWT.
If it’s global warming why is only the arctic melting? Why doesn’t the Antarctic ice melt as well?
When will the Western Antarctic ice sheet fall off?
“If we keep on with business as usual, the Earth will be warmed more every year; drought and floods will be endemic; many more cities, provinces, and whole nations will be submerged beneath the waves – unless heroic worldwide engineering countermeasures are taken. In the longer run, still more dire consequences may follow, including the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and the inundation of almost all the coastal cities on the planet.” Chapter 11, “Ambush: The Warming of the World”, Carl Sagan
OK and if the data showed .00000001% of warming is non-variable, therefore anthropogenic, the watermelons would still have a cow and demand $trillions in climate reparations.
Gaia is outed.
the science is settled!!!!!!
Start adding together the natural warming cycles that are known or suspected: slow steady warming since the Little Ice Age, positive (warming) phase of ocean oscillations (30 years of a 60 year cycle) and the 11 year solar cycle that influences cosmic radiation (CLOUD experiment). How much does that leave for man-made CO2 warming?
Every once and awhile those cycles are going to align and cause what looks like “runaway” warming. Perhaps the slope of that “super” cycle will look much like the graph of temperature from the 1970s to about 1997. Certainly man-made CO2 has also had an influence since greenhouse physics is solid but this influence has a maximum effect of about 1C and only in the absence of negative (cooling) feedbacks.
The good news for climate scientists is that their models will look great during every warming phase. The bad news is that the models will completely fail during the cooling/pause phase of the cycle(s). Such is the curse of imposing linear trends on a sine wave. Thankfully, we have been assured by experts that all post-industrial cooling and pauses are natural and all warming is man-made. Therefore we must radically transform our energy systems, democratic institutions and standard of living because…science.
Praise Gaia and pass the research grant/green energy subsidy applications!
You have to read the article thoroughly to realise HIST is a warmist temperature model and that observed temperatures are way outside prediction – by at least two sigmas.
Be very,very,very careful of Curry.She flip-flops between Warmista and skeptic more times than Obumbles does.She is on the gravy train.
A study of statistical insignificance …. goosed by deliberate fraud.
Of course picking it apart shows that it is BS!
I don’t like the use of the term “warming period” for the 1975-1998 span.. it reeks of cherry-picking the dates in order to “prove” something. The entire graph looks like an overall flat line with some noise and a single down-up-down cycle.
I wish the Y-axis temp scale was from -30 C to +30 C, which is a range many of us experience over only 365 days. The resulting flat line would give a better picture what we are arguing about, which is basically nothing.
Indeed, we do experience a range of -30 deg C to +35 deg C (for me this year) in one year. Furthermore, on a cold day, the temperatures within a house will vary by about 10 deg from near a door or window to the kitchen. And I might add, the variation in temperature over 5 cm from outside one of your nostrils to inside may well be -30 to +35. The people who discuss climate are talking about, say, 0.5 deg over 6 years. And who knows? How sensitive are their averages to choice of weather station? I suppose that a sensitivity analysis has been done; it would be nice to see it reported where I don’t have to dig it out.
A lot of this nonsense is due to linear extrapolation. If you were to extrapolate the typical temperature rise from say 5 am to 8 am forward to two days you would want to move to the Arctic. There is nothing more scientifically illiterate, and indeed, mathematically illiterate, than linear extrapolation except over intervals which are short compared to the typical separations of your data points. WUWT quotes Carl Sagan – in many ways a good scientist but nonetheless a mathematical illiterate.