"Scientists are naturally unhappy when data doesn’t match their predictions ? and they want to know the reason why."

Either there is something wrong with the predictions or something wrong with the data. In climate science, 97% of the time they find something wrong with the data (or is it 100%?).

Or even better, they find an explanation for the data which doesn't invalidate the prediction: “The pause has a convincing statistical explanation,” or "the missing heat may be “concealed” in the deep oceans,". That's good enough for anyone who sees climate science as "settled".

"natural cooling of 0.28°C to 0.37°C since 1998"

That is massive cooling. I have no idea where he gets those numbers.

The lake I once fished as a boy would freeze over so hard we could drive on it and ice fish. Now the lake does not freeze over, and we fish from shore in the winter because it does not freeze any more. So something is warming our winters up and causing climate changes. The ice fields melting of could reduce over all temperatures for a few years; but look at your facts friend the cooling off has gone from 28C to 37C that is an increase in temperature not a cooling down.

ARE YOU PEOPLE FOR REAL. Our ozone was warped temporarily by an ALIEN Organism for 34 years and now that we humans figured out a way to turn it off, so nature can repair itself after 34 years of warpness. Your calling this a cold spell. All non solids like Gases, Exhausts, smoke, Co2, etc that rises into the upper atmosphere are separated by natures chemicals into nothingness as our planet rotates so our suns rays can warm earth to grow plants for food and oxygen so all species can survive. My Triple Output solution implemented by another Nation turned off Global Warming 11/28/2012 confirmed and triggered Haley's Comet into returning to its original mission. It collided with the so-called Asteroid in deep space 13 years from Earth= dubbed THE BIG BANG. Global command

Why 1998?

Maybe you should try reading the actual paper? http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprin...

Here I will repost what was posted in the previous thread dealing with the same thing.

---------------------------------------...

But what is the cause of the pause? If we look at current data and measurements we can see.

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling - http://physics.indiana.edu/~brabson/p310...

Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade - https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate...

Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods - http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasull...

Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus - http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/...

Note that the article above points to the IPO or the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. The IPO is a "Pacific-wide Manifestation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation with as much variance in the Southern Hemisphere Pacific down to at least 55°S as in the Northern Hemisphere". Basically, the slowdown in surface warming is due to an increased uptake of heat by the oceans which are tied to a cooling or a slowdown in warming of Pacific ocean waters. The IPO tracks very closely with the PDO.

The following gives a minimum time period where one can identify human effects on global tropospheric temperatures. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...

They give a minimum of 17 years. The trend for the last 17 years is as follows:

Gistemp: 0.078 ± 0.119°C/decade

NOAA: 0.046 ± 0.109°C/decade

HadCRUT4: 0.048 ± 0.112°C/decade

RSS: -0.013 ± 0.201°C/decade

UAH: 0.094 ± 0.206°C/decade

( From http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.ph... )

None of those show a significant trend. The conclusion, therefor, is that the 17 year period is too short in the time periods given and a longer time period is needed to discern a trend.

---------------------------------------...

So basically we know why the atmosphere is increasing at a rate slower than it has previously. We also have a better understanding as to why and how. Lovejoy even provided a question and answer document.

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprin...

Edit: Zippi says "Your UAH 17 year trend is way off base" How about if we use woodfortrees? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:19...

It doesn't, however, show the error bars which are larger than the actual trend in this rather short time period. Which is what the skepticalscience trend calculator shows.

Edit: Zippi. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. It seems the more I try and beat it into your head the stupider you get. You don't even understand what trends are. With your last edit you are merely continuing what I've already stated.

Zippi: It would help if you actually understood the science and data. You seem to be questioning whether CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere at all with this post. And you are talking about the surface and lower troposphere data sets. There are large parts of the Earth system that are unaccounted for in these data sets. The links I gave emphasize this.

It is easier to argue your point than suggesting it continued warming since 1998 like alarmists always do. At least you have data on your side. They have their models but frankly I have more respect to what Heidi Klum says than their models.

If you were to think about what you just posted, you probably wouldn't have posted it.

What it says is that there has been a "natural cooling" that has occurred.

Now measurements have shown warming, although irregular.

However, if that warming has occurred despite that natural cooling, which is temporary, how hot would it be today without that cooling?

In other words, warming due to CO2 has occurred, despite a cooling that has hidden it.

SO, thanks for pointing out that CO2 is far more serious than we thought. Good Job ! ! !

A tenth here, a tenth there. It is way warmer than 1940-1980.