The models must track how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
cycle through the whole system — how the gases
interact with plant life,
oceans, the atmosphere — and how this influences overall global temperatures.
I would have liked to see mention of uncertainty that inherent in examining short term data, whether the end points used introduces an element of bias, whether the «pause» is on a much higher plateau of warming than in the past, whether decadel
cycles in
ocean heat displacement may have
interacted with the the known minimum levels of solar activity (not modelled) to cause this «pause».
We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores
cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital
cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on
ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all
interacting via «teleconnection» of those
ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar
cycles, some peaking together; b) because the
cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer
cycles.