Smithers

David, perhaps you have already addressed some of these points, but I didn't see them mentioned... The consensus seems to be that the Pacific has shifted to its longterm -PDO phase. As I'm sure you know, that favors La Nina develpment and tends to work against El Nino development. In addition, the last ten years have seen an unusual number of El Ninos, with events in 1998, 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2006-07. How do these factors relate to your El Nino forecast, if at all? With the case of Pinatubo, at least, I'm afraid you are wrong. Global temperatures were actually running quite warm in 1991 before Pinatubo erupted, and afterwards they plunged mightily. Pinatubo clearly was the cause, as the solar cycle was still high and El Nino conditions existed in the Pacific.

But look at ENSO-corrected temperatures. Still a flat or slightly cooling trend since around 2000. And that's with the GISS temps dominating the picture...if satellite temperatures were used, the trend would most definitely be more downwards. Again, I ask: what are the strong negative natural forcings that would cause a flat temperature trend the past 8-10 years? Solar activity was only slightly lower with Cycle 23 than the previous two cycles, and the PDO remained mostly positive until 2007. These are questions that AGWers have not been able to answer. If the AGW signal is so strong, then it should take significant negative natural forcings to cancel it out. And yet we have seen temperatures level off with very little regression of positive natural forcings.

I definitely agree. The accelerated melting of the past couple weeks was likely due to the rapid melting of the remaining ice in the Hudson and Baffin Bays. Now that that low-latitude ice is gone, the melt rate has slowed considerably. The ice in the actual Arctic Circle continues to melt much slower than last year.

Well, already 10 years of no warming has not changed a lot of minds... 1. Aerosols (I think this is complete garbage). 2. The negative phase of the PDO cycle. This matches up quite well, so I believe the correlation. But perhaps you suggest the PDO (and other ocean cycles of course) can be directly attributed to your PFM?

Of course. I was just stating the observed facts in relation to your comment that temperature and CO2 are rising "in lockstep".

So do you think the recent drop in solar activity (not just sunspots) recently plays into the cycles you are citing? And will it contribute to the rather rapid drop in global temperatures you predict?

I would just like to address this statement. Earth's temperatures have been in an overall rising trend for quite awhile (thousands and thousands of years), and we've only recently been able to accurately track the rise in CO2. In addition, the globe began to rise out of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and this rise continued through the 1800s, and then 1900s. CO2 did not start to rise appreciably until the early 1900s. So even in this short time period, a lag can be seen.

That seems reasonable. The only reason I suggest the flat trend might be significant is that 1) it was not expected by AGW proponents (they may tell you otherwise, but it's simply not true), and 2) there is not other flat trend like it since global warming supposedly accelerated after 1977. But yes...a waiting game it is. I would argue that it would start to debunk the AGW hypothesis much earlier than that. After all, the 2007 IPCC report predicted that at least half of the years between 2009-2015 would be warmer than 1998. Clearly, they expect no prolonged halt in the temperature rise.

Hi, Village Plank, thanks for the welcome. I agree that the longer the flat period persists, the more mathematically certain we can be that it is not just noise within the greater signal.

Yes, and I find ten years a long enough time to distinguish between "noise" and "trends". Why? Because there are no prior ten year periods during the warming signal that can be equated with this one. If it is noise, it should appear periodically. Show me another flat ten year trend during a +PDO/+ENSO phase the past 100 years. In addition, there should be some sort of scientific explanation for the "noise"...if there is not, then can we not discount the previous ten year trend (1988-1998) as just noise as well? We must have some faith in the accurracy of global temperature readings, or else there is no way to be certain of any trends. Hi, thank you! It just means they have removed the ENSO (El Nino or La Nina) signal from the temperature trend. Many people used to accuse skeptics of cherry-picking if they started a graph from 1998 because that year featured a huge El Nino that rapidly warmed the globe. However, when the ENSO signal is removed, the ten year trend is still basically flat.

Well, you have to consider that solar activity is generally believed to have a 1-3 year lag effect (due to the oceans, I believe). Also, the PDO was only proclaimed to have entered its negative phase here in the last few months. Regardless, the Nina and PDO certainly can't explain the level temperatures over the past 10 years, as both ENSO and PDO were mostly positive during that time. Strangely enough, Dr. James Hansen testified before the U.S. Congress in June 1988 that the latest temperature trends were evidence of man-made global warming. How long had temperatures been rising at that time? About ten years (since 1977-78).

Hello all, I'm a newbie to this forum and I've found it quite informative and entertaining so far. I think there are several things worth pointing out about this latest temperature drop: 1) Temperatures have returned to the same levels as the last major temperature drop (1999). All previous, non-volcano induced drops of the past 30 years have been warmer than the drops that preceded them. 2) In relation to the first point, the years leading up to this latest drop did not feature a steady upward climb. If you look at every other period between temperature drops, temperatures are climbing. 3) Temperatures dropped faster than any previously recorded drop, including the rapid transistion from strong El Nino to strong La Nina in late 1998/1999 (one would think this drop would be faster). 4) Speaking of ENSO, if one removes the ENSO effects from the temperature trends, it is clear that something changed in the past 10 years. The question is not whether temperatures have leveled off the past 10 years, it is why? ENSO fluctuations are not the reason, so what could it be? I don't buy that it's just "noise"...there should be some actual scientific explanation for such a trend reversal.