Global warming has largely stalled since the late 1990s, raising concerns regarding our understanding of climate sensitivity, the underlying mechanisms influencing climate variability and the ability of climate models to
represent decadal variability.
That mixing trend could
represent decadal variability or the centuries long increasing upwelling trend documented under the Peru Current (detailed in Part 2).
Not exact matches
If you can't keep up with annual -
decadal changes in the TOA radiative imbalance or ocean heat content (because of failure to correctly model changes in the atmosphere and ocean due to natural
variability), then your climate model lacks fidelity to the real world system it is tasked to
represent.
Therefore, the projections contain little of
decadal or shorter signals of
variability — we're quite confident they have the global warming signal as
represented by the model (except in desert regions, where one event can define the signal).
As where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural
variability, with the short
decadal time scale (weather) in natural
variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are
representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real world.