A statistical stasis from 1995 to 2014 (19 yrs) is being described as a Pause (or Hiatus if you prefer)
There is no compelling evidence recognized by mainstream climate science which supports this assertion that I am aware of. Please cite and reference the journal and paper in which lists and explains this evidence.
Prof Philip Jones (UEA – CRU) was reported as saying this about the Pause, "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995" despite a 7% increase in CO2 concentrations in that period.
Please cite and reference the journal and paper in which this researcher confirms your assertion.
(BTW the last time I saw this particularly wrong specific claim was a little over four years ago, took me a bit to remember where, but it wasn't too hard to locate -
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/apr/14/sun-blamed-for-europes-colder-winters
reader response #14 Rod Eaton, Apr 16, 2010 9:31 AM
As, according to Prof Philip Jones (UEA – CRU), there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, despite a 7% increase in CO2 concentrations in that period, one really has to consider that the scaremongering of dangerous warming from human causation (as promoted by non-scientists such as Al Gore) may well be more of an ‘urban legend’ than ‘a scientific fact.’
There are many papers on the Pause / Hiatus ... here is one that defines it this way ...
the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century
This paper does not confirm or support your assertion. In fact, its claims and evidences refute your claims; please provide cite/reference to journal and paper(s) that support your assertions.
Your reference talks about these two researchers efforts to create a climate model looking at variable related to the southern pacific ocean called POGA (Pacific Ocean-Global Atmosphere) that accurate reflects some of the hindcast characteristics observed over the period starting in the 1970s running to 2012.
First, they take their model and plug in the historic and understood variable value data, locked the rates at the 1990 reference point and let this model run, labeling it their Historic (HIST) model. Next they took the observed and measured data points over the same time frame and found that during the period between 1998 and 2010, there was a distinct difference between what their historic model predicts and what the actual measured data points represent. They began tweaking their model with a series of changes and adjustments until they ran across a model variant that fairly closely followed the actual measured data points reflected.
Their results were interesting and are actually fairly closely tied to two other papers I recently mentioned (within the last two days). But neither their research, nor their evidence supports your conclusions or assertions, nor even you definition.
Even though they are speaking primarily about what their models demonstrate they do use these terms which clearly indicates a rejection of your general and specific proposals:
A question remains whether the La Niña-like decadal trend is internal or forced. We note the following facts: i) The tropical Pacific features pronounced low-frequency SST variability (Extended Data Fig. 7), so large that the pattern of modest forced response has yet emerged from observations (Fig. 1b). ii) All the climate models project a tropical Pacific warming in response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. We conclude that the recent cooling of the tropical Pacific and hence the current hiatus are likely due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. As such, the hiatus is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state. Similar hiatus events may occur in the future and are difficult to predict at multi-year leads due to limited predictability of tropical Pacific SST. We showed that when taking place, such events are accompanied by characteristic regional patterns including an intensified Walker circulation, weakened Aleutian low and
prolonged droughts in the southern US.
While radiative-forced response will become increasingly important, deviations
from the forced response are substantial at any given time, especially on regional scales. Quantitative tools like our POGA-H are crucial to attribute the causes of regional climate anomalies. The current hiatus illustrates the global influence of tropical Pacific SST, and a dependency of climate sensitivity on the spatial pattern of tropical ocean warming, which itself is uncertain in observations and among models. This highlights the need to develop predictive pattern dynamics constrained by observations.
I await your support and explanations
?
!
