“The significance of this paper is1) the list of authors (many if not most whom are IPCC authors) and 2) the lucid explanation and context that is provided for the overall debate on this topic. The ‘hiatus’, ‘pause’ or whatever has been a dominant topic in both the scientific and the public debate on climate change since about 2012.
I don’t disagree with anything in this paper or in Ed’s blog post. A few specific comments:
I agree that the preferred term is ‘slowdown’; this gets us away from details of the trends and disagreement among different datasets. I also agree that the main significance is the discrepancy between climate model simulations.
I am a little surprised that they chose 1972 as the demarcation between the large hiatus during mid century and the late 20th century warming period. I would have chosen 1976, associated with the shift to the warm PDO/IPO.
I think the issue of multi-decadal variability is more complicated than is portrayed by the paper, which focuses on PDO/IPO.
The topic that didn’t receive sufficient attention in the paper IMO was solar, particularly the possibility of indirect solar effects.
Overall, the authors are to be congratulated for a very well done and important paper, that given the author list arguably redefines the consensus on this topic.
As for Gavin’s comment, it is totally bizarre. Gavin’s recent papers on the topic claim to explain the slowdown by forced variability. He is wrong; multi-decadal ocean oscillations play an important role. Calling this definitions and academic bickering is beyond bizarre.”
by Judith Curry
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. – Fyfe et al.
View original post 1,361 more words