Oh – I just noticed the latest tirade. The warming is nowhere near 0.17 or 0.2 degrees/decade. Not even in the skepticalscience animation. Even generously accepting Swanson at the rc post ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ ) – it is about 0.1 degrees C/decade between 1979 and 1997 – i.e. excluding ENSO dragon-kings.
Even if we assume – as Swanson suggests – that all this is global warming due to greenhouse gases it is still about 58.88235% of the total warming in the period. So 41.12…% is ENSO.
The assumption that it is all greenhouse gases between 1979 and 1997 seems at least questionable given the satellite TOA flux data.
If he had bothered to read the Wong et al 2006 reference – and it takes a little more than 2 minutes – he would have found this – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Wong2006figure7.gif
Where we have overlapping ocean heat content and ERBE data – it shows the ocean heat content responding to the reduction in cloud. This of course makes perfect sense and shows the consistency with the satellite record – as noted in the IPCC link I provided. The same thing is apparent in the CERES?ARGO overlapping period.
The proposition is that this Pacific mode has both augmented and hidden any global warming signal from greenhouse gses. This is quite obvious, has been for a decade and is the subject of the NASA article I keep linking to.
For the future the cool mode will likely persist for another decade or three. Beyond that there can be no expectation that we will return to a warmer mode. Given that we are at a 1000 El Nino peak – the expectations should include progression to a cooler and more cooler phase.
Even if it did return to a warmer phase – it is only about 0.1 degrees C/decade. What would that matter for another 50 years at least? We will still be well within the mooted dangerous warming.
But it is not as simple as that.
It is no wonder that bllah blah duh and webby the attack smurf get on so well – they are both comprehensively idiots.
![\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Cddot%5Csmile%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit+%5C%2C%5Cddot%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffff&fg=ff3300&s=1 "\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
![\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Cddot%5Csmile%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit+%5C%2C%5Cddot%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffcc&fg=0000ff&s=1 "\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
.
