That the noise of natural variability can temporarily be strong enough to make the underlying
warming signal seem to «disappear» for short periods is nothing new.
Not exact matches
[Response: Unfortunately, you
seem to have conveniently forgotten that Keigwin (and Pickart) published a paper in Science just a few years later in 1999 pointing that the appparent cooling (actually, the oxygen isotopic
signal in question isn't entirely temperature, it is salinity as well, so the quantative 1 deg cooling estimate you cite is not actually reliable) in the Sargasso Sea is diametrically opposed by a substantial
warming at the same time in the Laurentian Fan region of the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland.
Nonetheless, with the passage of time, Pope Francis has
seemed to take an ever more decided stance behind the notion of manmade global
warming, while sending
signals that there was not much room for debate on the issue.
Raising the costs of 7.5 billion people's food, energy and fuel in order to maybe slow down
warming by less than.1 C / decade
seems like a very risky thing to do to me, and I want to see 60 to 120 years more data to really tease out the human
signal from the background natural variability
signal.
Lastly Parker does not
seem to speculate on the fairly consistent higher trend of temperature increase he found on windy days compared to calm days, except to say it is the opposite of an urban
warming signal and earlier in his paper to speculate that the windy days might not be as impacted by bad temperature sensing apparatus and siting.
Consequently Leroux's comments
seem a reasonable premise, and the attempt to find a
warming signal in every piece of data somewhat counter-productive.