Bottom line: why can't you come to grips with reality and acknowledge the globe has not warmed as predicted?
This is what Steve is hanging his hat on. He has provided us an argument based upon linear trends to support his view point.
Here is where the lines intersect.
Phil Jones work managed to shorten the cooling trend by a little less than a year no doubt his initial objective was to seek explanation for why observations were not matching models we have seen that repeatedly coming out of that crowd.
Thats all fine and good but linear analysis can be very misleading if the trends are not linear and to Steve's way of thinking they are.
In my view they are likely not. Here is an analysis of long term trends and periodic short term influences on those long term trends. It tells a much different story.
_________________________________
_________________________________
Warming has accelerated on a longterm scale (like the 60 year trend scale) the graph below shows that acceleration as a slope.
We can see warming accelerates strongly and decelerates strongly.
We can also see a longer period acceleration in the data by virtue of the weak cooling period noted from about 1945 to 1975. Its .4degC higher than the cooling period from 1880 to 1910. However this weak cooling is a product of the early 20th century not of the boom in emissions post 1970.
The ocean oscillation on top of Akasofu's .5degC per century warming pretty much still roughly matches this 60 year trend pattern even with the acceleration.
Akasofu did not offer an explanation for the weak cooling of the 50's and 60's his oscillation was hand modified so he knew it was there but did not discuss any potential reasons.
Its really this weak cooling that creates the acceleration in the chart and it seems its what entices warmist climatologists and linear trend fans.
One should note that Akasofu built his basic work on an older Hadcrut series before Phil Jones got his hands on it and started lowering the 1940's peak. So some of the acceleration is likely bias. We will see more of that later in this post.
Thats not to say at all the acceleration noted in this chart is the responsibility of bias. Other explanations exist as well including AGW as one example. I will provide another below.
What is interesting is acceleration does not favor the latter 20th century.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
A number of warmologists has pointed peaked with cycle 19 and they have been using that as a denial the temperatures were changed by the sun as warming continued beyond that.
Or did it?
The LIA recovery might be heat conducting down into the deep ocean.
The mechanism is conduction through 3,000 meters of still ocean taking perhaps more than a thousand years, assuming no reversals. There is a link around here I posted a bit more than a year ago regarding ocean uptake of heat that strongly supports that theoretically. Ocean cycles become how it affects average temperature and the conduction provides a warming trend as the ocean rewarms from the LIA.
This can explain why the warming is not accompanied with a lot current high temperature records. What is happening is the cool influences of ocean oscilations in general is dissipating more than the atmosphere warming.
Lets get into the weeds some:
First since these are 60 year trends the peak in the current warming cycle probably is not yet reached (assuming it will peak as in the previous oscillation) It likely needs another 10-15 years to peak (note the delay beyond the 1945 cooling).
_____________________________________-
I have another nifty chart. This is a look at trends within the trend. Annual differences in the 60 year trend trended to 5 years. Sort of a 2nd derivative look.
Here its really interesting because the solar minimum event of 2008 stands out as one of the greatest cooling influences in the entire history of Hadcrut. It is only matched by the cooling influence of 1959 to 1964. What happened then? Well the biggest solar cycle in the observation record was cycle 19 that peaked in 1957!
Interestingly these two biggest solar events are head and shoulders the largest drops in the entire Hadcrut temperature record!
I drew a little curve on the chart to suggest that perhaps the PDO (cold phase and waning grandmax)had also a major influence temperatures.
It shows up for real in the early 20th century (warm phase PDO plus Grand Max) but seems muted in the latter portion of the 20th century.
One explanation for why cooling has been delayed well past the peak of the solar grand maximum could be it ran in to an emerging warm PDO and before that the grand max was muted in its last years by a cold PDO.
Here is what it looks like after the Phil Jones fiddling:
Hmmm, some of that latter correction must have been throwing out rural sites to replace with "high quality" urban sites, which we know of course UHI isnt a factor so he has scientific authority to replace less reliable rural sites with more high quality urban sites. LOL! Bias at work! Somebody needs to check the new reference network!!
So the recent solar grand maximum might only be responsible for the acceleration seen on the above chart. Not responsible for the ongoing LIA recovery or the ocean oscillations, at least directly anyhow.
Is the acceleration still in place?
If you look closely at the 60 year trend chart you can see it bending earlier than it did in the early 20th century. And that is confirmed on the trend on trend charts. Where the greater influences on the trend were had in the early 20th century.
The real kicker the first chart gives us when we note Judith Curry's list of scientists we all know well here acknowledging that warming has paused and that it has paused before.
LOL! Boy is that a reserved concession! We can see it has paused before in the above chart!Can anybody spell ocean oscillations? Steve and Hansen are recognizing a pause and ignoring the data! Its simple as that. Models have preference! There needs to be a search for the cause of the pause as the data has to be wrong!
The truth is they scooped up the warm phase of that "pause" years ago and over projected warming from their models there is no scientific support for an alternative explanation to the explanation that the Hadcrut data continues to display, that is too powerful to get rid of despite all efforts.
Steve still clings to his .2degC/decade warming when there never was even 30 years of it in the entire record even boosted by ocean oscillations.
We will have to see how the long term trend tips over to see if acceleration is still in place. Thats going to take at least a decade unless of course the coming solar minimum can align itself with a La Nina.
Meanwhile we have our favorite astro-meteorologist here Astromet predicting some kind of cooling kicking in in a few years. Though he says the next ENSO is 8 years off.
I don't know. The next decade should be interesting. Even Steve seems to be wavering a bit. He isn't boldly making predictions of .75 year just around the corner.
A .540 year is really meek considering we have (or had) a positive ENSO and a solar max in place right now. These short term forcings have been shown to override the longer term forcings.
But Steve will not get the answer here. He is probably going to be off attending IPCC seance sessions in exotic locations while imbibing in exotic local traditions and herbal preparations in search of an answer to this problem.