The climate reporter of BBC claimed that NONE of the climate models predicted the halt in global warming that has occurred since 1998, the warmest year. This article reports the same deficiency of the climate models.

If there is room for improvement in the climate models, and if everyone is aware of this failure to predict, which is seen as a deficiency, then perhaps it is time for the writers of the software for the models to start to take into account the available information on ocean cycles, if they haven't already done so, or if they need to improve their taking into account of these cycles.

A close student of the literature on climate, Alan Carlin (who, besides having a doctorate in economics from MIT, also has a BS in physics from California Institute of Technology), recently wrote:
"What appears to be by far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations is variations in the PDO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60 year cycle. " [ENSO = El Nino Southern Oscillation; PDO =Pacific Decadal Oscillation; AMO=Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation]

The chart in article is dreadfully wrong. It looks like it was taken from one of the many hockey stick type graphs that have been proven to be at least incorrect (bad data, bad programming and and bad algorithm) but most likely from scientific misconduct if not outright fraud. The money being wasted on global warming are hurting the ability to prepare for the 30 years or so of cooling that will come with this solar minimum.

re: #1 EE

You're pimping Alan Carlin, the guy who's supposed rebuttal to AGW was simply to compile claims by various deniers and even flakier people, then to have it leaked by the Inhofe crowd without the due process needed by the EPA?

re: #2 largolarry

Alan Carlin did not claim that there is not any increase in CO2. Nor did he claim that there is absolutely no greenhouse effect of the CO2 due to its blanketing effect. Why don't you read what he actually wrote instead of throwing ad hominems against him? The controversy concerns (1) the magnitude of the actual effect of CO2, and (2) ignoring other effects and possible effects involving non-CO2 causes.

Alan Carlin speculated that the correlation between global temperature fluctuations and the ocean temperature cycles, specifically ENSO, PDO, and AMO, is strong, stronger than some other things that have been proposed and assumed to be correlated with global temperature fluctuations.

This suggests to me that others should go over the evidence that he presents in his report, and that researchers should study the matter further. Specifically, the effect of ocean temperature cycles needs to be studied more than it has been studied. This is borne out by the excuses of the mode-makers that El Nino could have explained the spike in temperatures in 1998, and that they could have predicted such things (but they didn't).

excuses of the model-makers

re: #5 EE

Carlin's "leaked" report was composed mostly of cut and past from sites like WUWT. Which explains the emphasis on simple data correlations (over time) rather than understanding the physical actions of the climate system itself.

Alan Carlin has suggested that the most grievous alleged "failure" (let's call it more charitably an imperfection) of the climate models based on the UN report involve what happens in the tropics. He says that that region and its air above it is known as the footprint of CO2. He says that according to the models based on the UN report, in the troposphere above the tropics, the temperature is predicted to be getting warmer faster than the warming at the surface of the earth. And yet he claims, and shows evidence from research that was done, which allegedly shows that this is not happening, actually. Either they are warming at the same rate, or, more contradictorily, the surface is warming faster than the warming of the troposphere.

I think that the appropriate way of science is not to settle the matter by ad hominems against the messenger, Alan Carlin, who is simply reporting what other researchers have found. The appropriate way of science is for other investigators to duplicate the experiments that were don, and to see if they get results similar to those reported by Carlin.

Alan Carlin is not a researcher in the climate field, and he doesn't claim to be anything but someone reporting the research that others have published. If he is reporting research results that some people find heretical and contrary to their pre-conceived opinions, and especially contrary to the predictions of the models, that is not a reason to heap ad hominem abuse on the messenger. It is a reason for other researchers to do their research and either confirm or refute the published evidence that Carlin cites.

I have followed the solar cycles from the late 1960's when I was working in the field as an applied mathematician and was member of several profession societies. At that time, the prevailing scientific wisdom was that we were heading for an ice age but i observed an increase in solar activity and was convinced that a warming trend would occur. I am now observing a deep solar minimum that may be approaching a Dalton or a Maunder type (or just the early 1900's less severe type). This is the area that i think our research dollars should go since global warming has mostly favorable outcomes (i.e. the roman warm period) while minimums are very destructive in their outcomes.

I remember attending a lecture by Arthur Meyerhoff in the '60s explaining how continental drift and plate tectonics was impossible. One of his themes was "correlation is not causation". That is true enough, but when a correlation is strong one is quite foolish to ignore it. Time proved Meyerhoff embarrassingly wrong.

The folks who say the sun cannot be responsible for a large portion of observed warming because the observed variation is "TSI" is so small sound a lot like Meyerhoff to me.

People who have not carefully read Shaviv, Vezier, and Svensmark are missing a lot of the story.