The following are two reposted Replies from the Antarctic folder's "Forcing" thread (see link below), and there are many other posts there on this topic:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,41.msg36230/topicseen.html#msg36230First Repost: The following reference and the associated extract and attached image indicate that mean global temperature would have increased, during the recent hiatus period, at the rate projected by CMIP5 if not for the variable factors cited below (eg ENSO, volcanoes and incorrect mean global temperature measurements):
Markus Huber & Reto Knutti, (2014), "Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled", Nature Geoscience, Volume: 7, Pages: 651–656, doi:10.1038/ngeo2228
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2228.htmlAbstract: "Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models. Natural variability, a reduced radiative forcing, a smaller warming response to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and coverage bias in the observations have been identified as potential causes. However, the explanations of the so-called ‘warming hiatus’ remain fragmented and the implications for long-term temperature projections are unclear. Here we estimate the contribution of internal variability associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) using segments of unforced climate model control simulations that match the observed climate variability. We find that ENSO variability analogous to that between 1997 or 1998 and 2012 leads to a cooling trend of about −0.06 °C. In addition, updated solar and stratospheric aerosol forcings from observations explain a cooling trend of similar magnitude (−0.07 °C). Accounting for these adjusted trends we show that a climate model of reduced complexity with a transient climate response of about 1.8 °C is consistent with the temperature record of the past 15 years, as is the ensemble mean of the models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble."
Second Repost: The linked reference shows that a team of researchers from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) demonstrated that, in certain conditions, current climate models can simulate the pause/hiatus. This implies that as we leave the pause/hiatus period (that occurred due to natural variability, see the attached figure), that we are moving into a period of accelerated global warming:
Meehl, Gerald A., Haiyan Teng, and Julie M. Arblaster, “Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming,” Nature Climate Change (2014), doi:10.1038/nclimate2357
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2357.htmlAbstract: "The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations. However, a number of individual ensemble members from that set of models successfully simulate the early-2000s hiatus when naturally-occurring climate variability involving the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) coincided, by chance, with the observed negative phase of the IPO that contributed to the early-2000s hiatus. If the recent methodology of initialized decadal climate prediction could have been applied in the mid-1990s using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 multi-models, both the negative phase of the IPO in the early 2000s as well as the hiatus could have been simulated, with the multi-model average performing better than most of the individual models. The loss of predictive skill for six initial years before the mid-1990s points to the need for consistent hindcast skill to establish reliability of an operational decadal climate prediction system."
