Why global temperatures held steady for 10 years

[ArtRosen]

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html

Michael Marshall, environment reporter

Global warming temporarily ground to a halt over the last 10 years, thanks to increased pollution from China, the El Niño system in the Pacific, and a slight drop in the energy Earth gets from the sun.

"Global warming stopped in 1998" is one of the most common reasons people offer for not believing in climate change. It certainly looks like a problem for anyone claiming that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet: after all, we kept on pumping out carbon dioxide faster than ever, yet nothing happened to the temperature.

But according to the new analysis, various short-term factors can account for the slowdown. Most of those variables are going to change direction soon. So the halt in warming may be only temporary.

To find out if the slowdown could be explained, Robert Kaufmann of Boston University in Massachusetts and colleagues used a statistical model of the climate.

They took data collected between 1998 and 2008 on several factors that can affect the climate, including greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, and sulphur pollution from burning coal and other industrial activities.

Then they plugged the information into their model, ran it for the 1998-2008 period, and asked: does it replicate what global temperatures actually did?

The short answer is yes. In the model, global temperatures held steady, showing no significant rise over the study period.

[Matt Rogers]

http://www.newscient...res-held-s.html

Michael Marshall, environment reporter

Global warming temporarily ground to a halt over the last 10 years, thanks to increased pollution from China, the El Niño system in the Pacific, and a slight drop in the energy Earth gets from the sun.

"Global warming stopped in 1998" is one of the most common reasons people offer for not believing in climate change. It certainly looks like a problem for anyone claiming that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet: after all, we kept on pumping out carbon dioxide faster than ever, yet nothing happened to the temperature.

But according to the new analysis, various short-term factors can account for the slowdown. Most of those variables are going to change direction soon. So the halt in warming may be only temporary.

To find out if the slowdown could be explained, Robert Kaufmann of Boston University in Massachusetts and colleagues used a statistical model of the climate.

They took data collected between 1998 and 2008 on several factors that can affect the climate, including greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, and sulphur pollution from burning coal and other industrial activities.

Then they plugged the information into their model, ran it for the 1998-2008 period, and asked: does it replicate what global temperatures actually did?

The short answer is yes. In the model, global temperatures held steady, showing no significant rise over the study period.

The most impressive aspect of this research is that a peer-reviewed article actually admitted the flat global temperature trend between 1998 and 2008. That is something worth noting!

[BethesdaWX]

Funny how they only analyzed 1998-2008, when they should have gone thru 2011, surface data continues its flat-line through this timeframe on HADCRUT when using UAH poles.

What gives? And either way, I can think of several alternatives explanations that don't even need a model with hidden variables & calibrations, only observations & statistical analysis.

[A-L-E-X]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110705?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FscienceNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Science%29

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study

Smoke billows from chimneys at an industrial district near Tokyo February 28, 2011. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

Smoke billows from chimneys at an industrial district near Tokyo February 28, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Kim Kyung-Hoon

By Gerard Wynn

LONDON | Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:18am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulfur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulfur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulfur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.

The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.

"It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008," said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Nino weather event, a natural shift which brings warm waters to the surface of the Pacific Ocean every few years.

Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.

A U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that it was 90 percent certain that humankind was causing global warming.

COAL

Sulfur aerosols may remain in the atmosphere for several years, meaning their cooling effect will gradually abate once smokestack industries clean up.

The study echoed a similar explanation for reduced warming between the 1940s and 1970s, blamed on sulfur emissions before Western economies cleaned up largely to combat acid rain.

"The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution," it said.

Sulfur emissions are linked to coal consumption which in China grew more than 100 percent in the decade to 2008, or nearly three times the rate of the previous 10 years, according to data from the energy firm BP.

Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday's study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.

"Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain's Met Office.

[bluewave]

http://judithcurry.c...1998/#more-3966

In summary, the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors

[BethesdaWX]

http://judithcurry.c...1998/#more-3966

In summary, the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors

I've always thought the effect of Oceanic Oscillations (the PDO) is a bit overplayed on temperature directly, Roy Spencer is a perfect example of this IMO. Not saying it isn't the case, but in the -PDO, for example, there is a Huge Area of +SSTs in the central and western NPAC, larger than the -PDO region itself. The PDO/AMO probably hve a much larger Albedo Effect on Temperatures in the Modulations of Arctic Ice and Global Snowcover, but this could only have been the case since 2007 (which it has).

From 1998-2005, the PDO and AMO trended Upward. Although this is a semantical arguments, Global SST's didn't really change during this timeframe. The OHC increase slowed...and what is odd about that is that the Temperature Increase Stopped Completely after 2004 on all datasets except for GISS. So for OHC to level off, and for temperature to do the same, either

a) The Extra Heat is Going into the Deep Oceans, in which case our warming trend over the next 175yrs would be less if the AGW theory in climate sensitivity to CO2 as a causation forcing is correct.

or

b ) Some atmospheric phenomenon, (Potential culprits maybe Ozone or Cloud Cover Changes) has overwhelmed any warming from CO2 forcing, (since 1850,this is 1.4W/m^2).

The big question that is constantly avoided by the pro AGW scientists, is the fact that the LT needs to warm at least 20% faster than the Surface (higher in the high sensitivity models), as a whole, and is modeled to do so. In reality, the surface has warmed about 20% faster than the LT, and that cannot happen if it is an enhanced GHE that is causing our warming (or at least most of it). This is where the biggest questions arise.

Also knowing that yearly fluctuations in OLR usually are at least 20W/m^2, and the 2000's saw, on avg, 4-4.5W/m^2 moreOLR than the 1990s did, gives the notion that not only are there mechanisms unaccounte d for,but that climate sensitivity to energy change within a given timeframe has been over-estimated. This is likely directly related to the oceans.

[bluewave]

I've always thought the effect of Oceanic Oscillations (the PDO) is a bit overplayed on temperature directly, Roy Spencer is a perfect example of this IMO. Not saying it isn't the case, but in the -PDO, for example, there is a Huge Area of +SSTs in the central and western NPAC, larger than the -PDO region itself. The PDO/AMO probably hve a much larger Albedo Effect on Temperatures in the Modulations of Arctic Ice and Global Snowcover, but this could only have been the case since 2007 (which it has).

From 1998-2005, the PDO and AMO trended Upward. Although this is a semantical arguments, Global SST's didn't really change during this timeframe. The OHC increase slowed...and what is odd about that is that the Temperature Increase Stopped Completely after 2004 on all datasets except for GISS. So for OHC to level off, and for temperature to do the same, either

a) The Extra Heat is Going into the Deep Oceans, in which case our warming trend over the next 175yrs would be less if the AGW theory in climate sensitivity to CO2 as a causation forcing is correct.

or

b ) Some atmospheric phenomenon, (Potential culprits maybe Ozone or Cloud Cover Changes) has overwhelmed any warming from CO2 forcing, (since 1850,this is 1.4W/m^2).

The big question that is constantly avoided by the pro AGW scientists, is the fact that the LT needs to warm at least 20% faster than the Surface (higher in the high sensitivity models), as a whole, and is modeled to do so. In reality, the surface has warmed about 20% faster than the LT, and that cannot happen if it is an enhanced GHE that is causing our warming (or at least most of it). This is where the biggest questions arise.

Also knowing that yearly fluctuations in OLR usually are at least 20W/m^2, and the 2000's saw, on avg, 4-4.5W/m^2 moreOLR than the 1990s did, gives the notion that not only are there mechanisms unaccounte d for,but that climate sensitivity to energy change within a given timeframe has been over-estimated. This is likely directly related to the oceans.

Sometimes approximations are all we have.The uncertainty involved in long range climate projections and explanations makes the whole topic more interesting to me.

[Go Kart Mozart]

"The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution."

Don't worry true believers, when the space ship comes it will be bigger and better than ever!

[WeatherRusty]

"The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution."

Don't worry true believers, when the space ship comes it will be bigger and better than ever!

Why do you despise science so much? Or is only science you irrationally disagree with which prompts an ignorant, condescending statement like that?

[tacoman25]

Why do you despise science so much? Or is only science you irrationally disagree with which prompts an ignorant, condescending statement like that?

It's not as simple as a like or dislike of science.

[skierinvermont]

The most impressive aspect of this research is that a peer-reviewed article actually admitted the flat global temperature trend between 1998 and 2008. That is something worth noting!

Scientists have said this over and over and over before. Why don't you keep your WUWT talking points at WUWT. I like to read WUWT just to see what they've got to say and it's always funny when people come over hear and repeat their lies word for word.

[LakeEffectKing]

Why do you despise science so much? Or is only science you irrationally disagree with which prompts an ignorant, condescending statement like that?

Most of us just don't think the conclusion phase of "science" should have been drawn yet. I know you'd really like to believe (and lump together) everyone that questions the "science" is working on Big Oil's dime....or is a wingnut...or is stupid...or despises science.....but honestly....most of us are not.

[LakeEffectKing]

Scientists have said this over and over and over before. Why don't you keep your WUWT talking points at WUWT. I like to read WUWT just to see what they've got to say and it's always funny when people come over hear and repeat their lies word for word.

What lies has Matt "repeated"??

[BethesdaWX]

Scientists have said this over and over and over before. Why don't you keep your WUWT talking points at WUWT. I like to read WUWT just to see what they've got to say and it's always funny when people come over hear and repeat their lies word for word.

I don't think this has anything to do with WUWT...I didn't see any "lies" in his post. The only thing I would change is the timeframe. It has been 1998-2011 on the surface data at this point with no statistically significant trend in either direction.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think this has anything to do with WUWT...I didn't see any "lies" in his post. The only thing I would change is the timeframe. It has been 1998-2011 on the surface data at this point with no statistically significant trend in either direction.

Blatant fabrication. Despite starting in a strong Nino and ending in a strong Nina, the period 1998-2011 exhibits a statistically significant warming trend of +.12C/decade on GISS,

HadCRUT exhibits a trend of +.1C/decade when the poles are filled in with UAH data.

[skierinvermont]

What lies has Matt "repeated"??

The lie that scientists have denied the lack of a warming trend 1998-2008, which is obviously ripped straight from WUWT.

[OHSnow]

http://judithcurry.c...1998/#more-3966

In summary, the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors

You think? Maybe, just maybe, starting the 10-year period in the strongest El Nino on record and ending it in a moderate/strong La Nina might have something to do with the results. Obviously, I'm not denying that sulfur and other particulate matter plays a role in the climate -- we know it does, but I think this paper probably plays that up a bit.

As skierinvermont noted, added in 2009-2011 would make the trend positive anyways.

[BethesdaWX]

You think? Maybe, just maybe, starting the 10-year period in the strongest El Nino on record and ending it in a moderate/strong La Nina might have something to do with the results. Obviously, I'm not denying that sulfur and other particulate matter plays a role in the climate -- we know it does, but I think this paper probably plays that up a bit.

As skierinvermont noted, added in 2009-2011 would make the trend positive anyways.

No Ytterbium...2009-2011 does not make the trend positive...it remains "flat", actually upon calculating it, the trend-line barely changes when using HADCRUT w/ UAH poles, or simply NCDC.

Outside of the Arctic...the rest of the globe, as a whole, has actually been cooling via surface & satellite data. Just Look at HADCRUT3 (Highest Resolution) for Surface, and remove the UAH Arctic for the LT...When the Arctic is Removed, the Global Anomaly is a statistically significant cooling trend on HADCRUT & UAH/RSS. Does it matter? No.....unless "noise" counted in the temperature datasets to quantify a "trend"...then I have every right to do this.

To Clarify, 1998 spike to 2010 spike is a neutral ENSO trend, and the temperature trend between the two point is Negative in RSS, Positive on UAH, Negative on HADCRUT, Positive on GISS, and positive on NCDC. So, basically flat when combining the datasets. Noise in the dataset caused by other factors in the climate system can scew a reading slightly positive or slightly negative, but the point remains.

Skier

Blatant fabrication. Despite starting in a strong Nino and ending in a strong Nina, the period 1998-2011 exhibits a statistically significant warming trend of +.12C/decade on GISS,

HadCRUT exhibits a trend of +.1C/decade when the poles are filled in with UAH data

Depends. HADCRUT to what Lattitude? I do know for a fact that outside the Arctic, the Globe has been in a distict Cooling Trend, the Loss of Arctic Ice due to Natural Variability in Ocean Currents and Temperature Change creates the Albedo loss Feedback up there, as to where the rest of the globe doesn't have that issue. So sometimes I feel is best to exclude the Arctic From true "Global Temperature" Analysis. Not because it shows cooling...but because the arctic has been deviating from the globe...for obvious reasons than belong in the Arctic Sea Ice Thread.

But regardless you should combine the Means of the Datasets in the LT and Surface. As in, the UAH/RSS mean vs the HADCRUT/NCDC mean (the two highest resolution datasets).

HADCRUT3 which eliminates most of the Arctic (and Antarctic) exchibits the slight cooling trend:

RSS:

UAH:

Skier #2

The lie that scientists have denied the lack of a warming trend 1998-2008, which is obviously ripped straight from WUWT.

Talk to your Papi (Hansen) about that

[WeatherRusty]

It's not as simple as a like or dislike of science.

Why the reference to irrational belief with regard to the science of climate as if climate scientists are no better than believers in alien abduction. Do you think that analogy is warranted? Has mainstream science now reached such lows?

[tacoman25]

Why the reference to irrational belief with regard to the science of climate as if climate scientists are no better than believers in alien abduction. Do you think that analogy is warranted? Has mainstream science now reached such lows?

Some people do treat science like their religion. And that's a little wacko.

I think you are taking his analogy a little too seriously.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ite weird that it's not warming globally but the glavciers and arctic ice sheet are both crippled. Glaciers all over keep melting faster with more and more surface water forming as lakes on them then cracking the ice and falling threw.

Nova had scientists that are the first to see this. They attribute 10% of it to water and 90% to temps.

Are they lying. The glaciers they showed were ever increasing melting.

Where Is the equally extreme cold that causes the global to be no higher since the 90s

Why are sea levels rising faster. Glaciers melting faster then ever. Both keep increasing as of now but toe are steady?

I have hard time believing that. And it's really hard to believe the arctic hasn't warmed a whole lot

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ite weird that it's not warming globally but the glavciers and arctic ice sheet are both crippled. Glaciers all over keep melting faster with more and more surface water forming as lakes on them then cracking the ice and falling threw.

Nova had scientists that are the first to see this. They attribute 10% of it to water and 90% to temps.

Are they lying. The glaciers they showed were ever increasing melting.

Where Is the equally extreme cold that causes the global to be no higher since the 90s

Why are sea levels rising faster. Glaciers melting faster then ever. Both keep increasing as of now but toe are steady?

I have hard time believing that. And it's really hard to believe the arctic hasn't warmed a whole lot

[Mallow]

It's not as simple as a like or dislike of science.

Most of us just don't think the conclusion phase of "science" should have been drawn yet. I know you'd really like to believe (and lump together) everyone that questions the "science" is working on Big Oil's dime....or is a wingnut...or is stupid...or despises science.....but honestly....most of us are not.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It's so telling that, simply based on political association ("I agree with his ideas on aspect X"), you're defending this:

"The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution."

Don't worry true believers, when the space ship comes it will be bigger and better than ever!

...

Some people do treat science like their religion. And that's a little wacko.

I think you are taking his analogy a little too seriously.

It's not about taking it "seriously", it's about taking it as what it is--an insult with no substance. A statement like "we could see warming again akin to the 70s-90s once we're out of this cool 'cycle', due to AGW+natural warming", which is basically the quote that Mike ridiculed reworded, is neither controversial nor "wacko". To mock it and those who believe it might be a little wacko, though.

[ORH_wxman]

Ite weird that it's not warming globally but the glavciers and arctic ice sheet are both crippled. Glaciers all over keep melting faster with more and more surface water forming as lakes on them then cracking the ice and falling threw.

Nova had scientists that are the first to see this. They attribute 10% of it to water and 90% to temps.

Are they lying. The glaciers they showed were ever increasing melting.

Where Is the equally extreme cold that causes the global to be no higher since the 90s

Why are sea levels rising faster. Glaciers melting faster then ever. Both keep increasing as of now but toe are steady?

I have hard time believing that. And it's really hard to believe the arctic hasn't warmed a whole lot

Sea levels have not been rising faster. The people who say that are throwing lies around. Sea level rise has actually been decelerating a bit. This is talking since the 1920s.

As for the arctic, it has definitely warmed the fastest over the past 20-30 years. However, the arctic appears to be quite susceptible to changes in ocean circulations. We just do not know how much was because of that versus AGW. The 1940s saw similar arctic temps to the present.

The recent flat lining of global temperatures becomes a more legit question to ask the longer it goes on. Especially given that our measurements of OHC have been decelerating too...it should be the exact opposite of the air is not warming as fast.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Sea levels have not been rising faster. The people who say that are throwing lies around. Sea level rise has actually been decelerating a bit. This is talking since the 1920s.

As for the arctic, it has definitely warmed the fastest over the past 20-30 years. However, the arctic appears to be quite susceptible to changes in ocean circulations. We just do not know how much was because of that versus AGW. The 1940s saw similar arctic temps to the present.

The recent flat lining of global temperatures becomes a more legit question to ask the longer it goes on. Especially given that our measurements of OHC have been decelerating too...it should be the exact opposite of the air is not warming as fast.

Maybe it's the solar causing it. Those recent charts in the other thread comparing Dalton and our current cycle are pretty spot on.

If this causes the same cooling it did before. Maybe the Co2 forcing and this forcing are somewhat off-setting warming from Co2..

It could be playing some role.

[skierinvermont]

Sea levels have not been rising faster. The people who say that are throwing lies around. Sea level rise has actually been decelerating a bit. This is talking since the 1920s.

As for the arctic, it has definitely warmed the fastest over the past 20-30 years. However, the arctic appears to be quite susceptible to changes in ocean circulations. We just do not know how much was because of that versus AGW. The 1940s saw similar arctic temps to the present.

The recent flat lining of global temperatures becomes a more legit question to ask the longer it goes on. Especially given that our measurements of OHC have been decelerating too...it should be the exact opposite of the air is not warming as fast.

It has been rising faster recently. The past 20 years have risen at 3.2mm/yr vs the 20th century mean of ~2.2mm/yr.

You're getting stuck up on that paper that concluded no acceleration post1940 vs pre1940. But there are other ways of looking at it besides pre/post 1940.

Also, arctic temperatures today are significantly higher than they were in the 1940s.

[Jesse]

It has been rising faster recently. The past 20 years have risen at 3.2mm/yr vs the 20th century mean of ~2.2mm/yr.

You're getting stuck up on that paper that concluded no acceleration post1940 vs pre1940. But there are other ways of looking at it besides pre/post 1940.

Also, arctic temperatures today are significantly higher than they were in the 1940s.

Proof?

We didn't start doing measurements up there until later on I believe, so how can you say that with any certainty?

[WeatherRusty]

Maybe it's the solar causing it. Those recent charts in the other thread comparing Dalton and our current cycle are pretty spot on.

If this causes the same cooling it did before. Maybe the Co2 forcing and this forcing are somewhat off-setting warming from Co2..

It could be playing some role.

It should take about 7 years at the current rate of CO2 increase for greenhouse warming to equal the negative radiative impact of solar minimum. Global temp has likely been depressed by approximately 0.05C due to solar minimum alone.

[ORH_wxman]

It has been rising faster recently. The past 20 years have risen at 3.2mm/yr vs the 20th century mean of ~2.2mm/yr.

You're getting stuck up on that paper that concluded no acceleration post1940 vs pre1940. But there are other ways of looking at it besides pre/post 1940.

Also, arctic temperatures today are significantly higher than they were in the 1940s.

That's a convenient cherry picked time span so you can start with the big run up in the 1990s. For someone who constantly on this forum accuses people of cherry picking data and spreading "blatant lies" (a term you love to use)....you do a nice job of constructing some good houses of cards yourself.

If you are going to accuse people of that, fine, but don't expect to get away with doing the same thing.

The sea level rise has decelerated in the most recent decade..esp starting with about 2004, which matches up well with the OHC/global temp "problem". We saw a rise of around 4mm/yr in the 1990s but we have slowed to under 2mm/yr in the past 7-8 years.

Also, where are you getting the data about the arctic being much higher than the 1940s? Using GISS 64-90N, you get a running mean of about half a degree warmer than the 1940s...using Hadcrut 60-90N you get pretty much identical temperatures, maybe just a smidge warmer today. Given the arctic has had fluctuations of over 2C in the past 100 years, saying "the 1940s had similar temperatures to today" is not a stretch at all. I didn't claim they were exactly the same, I said "similar".

[BethesdaWX]

It should take about 7 years at the current rate of CO2 increase for greenhouse warming to equal the negative radiative impact of solar minimum. Global temp has likely been depressed by approximately 0.05C due to solar minimum alone.

You said yourself (on Eastern), that if this Decade Were to either Cool or Remain Steady from the 2000's, that you would be an outright skeptic of AGW...should I repost that? Have you changed your view? I don't see how the IPCC's Projected Trends of +0.19C per decade are supposedly overwhelmed by a Drop in TSI...after all, the drop in this solar cycle began around 2002, and supposedly TSI has been Decreasing since 1985...

Have you ever thought that maybe TSI is irrelavent at this point? From my perspective, and many other scientists...TSI is not the aspect related to Solar Activity that drives the climate long term...it is changes in clouds over extended (multi century) periods of time, where extended periods of higher/lower GCR counts, alter the rate of CCN development through changes in Sulfuric Acid and Water Vapor exchange rates.

Its funny to hear....Low Clouds Decreasing by Just 3% equates to 1.8W/m^2 of increase RF directly from the Sun to the Earth...5% Equates to 3W/m^2...7% equates to 4.2W/m^2...And the Profile of that Warming would See the Surface Warming the Fastest (as has been seen), rather than 20% slower than the LT (Progged on the IPCC/GHG models).

That is just oe possibility of many regarding climate sensitivity to changes in RF, relating directly to the Oceans in a sense...knowing that OLR has increased substantially in the bast 30yrs...I'd think you'd know this by now.

Also, where are you getting the data about the arctic being much higher than the 1940s? Using GISS 64-90N, you get a running mean of about half a degree warmer than the 1940s...using Hadcrut 60-90N you get pretty much identical temperatures, maybe just a smidge warmer today. Given the arctic has had fluctuations of over 2C in the past 100 years, saying "the 1940s had similar temperatures to today" is not a stretch at all. I didn't claim they were exactly the same, I said "similar".

+10

Proof?

We didn't start doing measurements up there until later on I believe, so how can you say that with any certainty?

Well we did measurements up there well before the 1940's, and we are a bit warmer now.....obviously not "significantly" ...by any means. Todays arctic temps are fairly comparable to those in the 1940's actually, maybe around 0.3C warmer today?