If you care to read the opening post on this thread the poster refers to decades and in particular to the 1930s (i.e. 1930-39), the 1980s (1980-89) and the 1990s (1990-99). My response reflected this. You point out that 1998-2007 was the warmest 10 year period , but this is a 10 year moving average which, to be honest, doesn't support your argument terribly well as this period only ended ~15 months ago and is boosted by the extreme El Nino year.
Honestly I have little faith in whether the 30's were warmer or cooler than today. For instance many of the measurements that suggest the recent period was warmer include stuff like estimates of the poles, Siberian temperatures during a period of of the Gulags, and a far less populated planet. Remove those northern Russia hotspots from the GISS record and what do you get? Way too much guessing and estimating going on to have much confidence in a few tenths of a degree.
But WOW!!! thats the whole argument for CO2 driven climate. . . .right? Unprecedented warming and no other explanation?
AFA, the super El Nino goes I would be more impressed if it had occurred in 2007 rather than 1998.
Bottom line with this bookend temperature if 2008 had tied 1998 in temperature. . . .the two ten year periods would be tied also.
Bottom line is anything short of a "record" temperature is not going to revive AGW alarmism. Level temperatures are just not going to cut it.
I have faced this kind of reversal many many times in my work and the results are always the same. . . .a denial of the facts.
The only proper way of addressing this situation is to recognize the effects and incorporate a robust ocean model in the climate model (such as the Don Easterbrook work).
Easterbrook ended up with some CO2 forcing after doing so but far below something to get alarmed about. The hockey stick is dead dead dead and we do not know yet just how dead AGW is.
Easterbrook didn't provide any causes for his incorporation of ocean processes into the climate model and has the current negative PDO holding the line but not cooling for 30 years. If it does cool more AGW is in more trouble. . . .and with La Nina loading in the robust ocean models, that may well be what happens next.
You have been relying on some false signals.
First I think you are predicting El Nino from climate models allegedly driving the oceans and ignoring the actual physical indicators in the ocean.
Second, you have been relying on the idea that the current solar minimum will soon end and things will start warming. Even Easterbrook didn't put solar into his model.
If you look at minimums and maximums there has been more than 4 times the warming occuring between solar maximum to minimum leg of the solar cycle than between solar minimum to maximum portion of the cycle.
Totals:
From maximums to minimums (total of 13 cycles) .543C (ave .0418)
From minimums to maximums (total of 13 cycles) .133C (ave .0102)
Adding in 2008 (+.055) minimum it pushes it to .598 for 14 cycles for an average of .0427.
Based on that without grand minimums, PDO shifts, and no CO2 forcing, temps should increase .01375C between now and the next solar maximum.
You can add in any effects you want. But it seems two out of three are likely negative and the third based upon recent falsification isn't likely to match crystal ball gazing.
