Arguments
What has global warming done since 1998?
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with the ten record temperature years all occurring since 2010. |
|||||
Climate Myth...
It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)
At a glance
This date-specific talking-point is now something of a historical curiosity, but we'll leave it in the database for now because it's such a good illustration of the simplistic yet reckless mindset of the serial climate change misinformer. And indeed, we could (out of sheer mischief) have revised this myth by replacing "1998" with "2016". In fact, that's what we started to see in the climate change misinformation stream, © the Usual Suspects. But 2023's record temperatures put a stop to that.
Anyway, as first predicted over a century ago, Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere are all heating up. That's due to our increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but over the years the warming has occurred at varying rates. This should in no way come as a surprise. Other physical phenomena periodically act either to suppress or enhance temperatures.
A prime example of such a phenomenon is the effects of La Nina and El Nino. This natural climatic oscillation features variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean. The cycle can at times strongly influence temperature and rainfall patterns right around the world.
In a La Nina year, temperatures are suppressed, whereas an El Nino year sees them enhanced. This is noise on the long-term upward trend. That's why climatologists work with multiple decades, not just a few years in isolation, in order to get a grasp on what is going on.
The year 1998 featured a massive El Nino. The temperature spike it caused was a huge outlier, like a pinnacle towering over the landscape of the temperature record. In the following years there was a return to more typical conditions, with an erratic but upward warming pattern. That sequence of events gave deniers a brief opportunity to insist that global warming had “paused” or had even stopped.
You only need to remember one thing here. Those who create and spread misinformation about climate change don't care about reality. Public confusion is their aim. In this instance, the misinformation exercise involved deliberately selecting a limited block of years starting with the massive El Nino of 1998 and using that very warm starting-point to insist that global warming had stopped. They knew this would likely work for a few years and that the public would quickly forget why that was the case. Mother Nature had handed them a gift. It was an irresistible bunch of low-hanging fruit to exploit: little wonder the tactic is known as 'cherry-picking'.
Talking about reality, what actually happened? Well, as of 2024, a couple of decades down the line, the top ten warmest years have all been since 2010, whatever observation-based dataset you choose, with eight of them being in the 2015-2023 period. 1998 is nowhere to be seen any more. By modern standards, it simply wasn't warm enough.
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section, which was updated on May 27, 2023 to improve its readability. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Further details
Even if we ignore long term trends (something deniers often do in order to make a point) and just look at the record-breakers, as of early 2024 the top ten warmest years have all been since 2010, whatever dataset you choose, with eight of them being in the 2015-2023 period. In this top ten grouping, 1998 is nowhere to be seen any more. It was not warm enough.
The myth of no warming since 1998 was largely based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too.
There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on atmospheric or surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Global Energy Inventory: observed changes in the global energy inventory for 1971–2018 (shaded time series) with component contributions as indicated in the figure legend. Cross-Chapter Box 9.1 Figure 1 (part a) - From IPCC AR6 WGI Chapter 9.
Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2015 is approximately 0.14°C per decade.
Ultimately, every part of the Earth's climate system is warming, and has continued warming since 1998.
Last updated on 8 March 2024 by John Mason. View Archives
I guess I have to repeat the simple observation that the up&down pattern of temperature shown in the Mears graph and the fact that what increase it does show is tremendously less than the models indicate all give ample reason to question the assumption that we are in the midst of a CO2 caused global warming. People can bring up all the other arguments they like, but until we see a much clearer picture of unmistakeable effects, it is not justified to claim that we absolutely know and understand what is going on. Glaciers are melting, but they always have. Greenland was a great deal warmer 800 years ago than is has been since then, and CO2 was low back then. Artic and Anarctic ice has increased and decreased in the past. Remember when everyone jumped on Katrina as the first superstorm from AGW? But we haven't seen a steady procession of them since. Everyone likes to jump on anecdotal events as long as whatever it is supports what they want to support. That's not science.
If anyone thinks for a millisecond that the world is going to seriously back off burning coal, oil, gas, and wood for that matter, they are indulging in fantasy. And again, we cannot take the CO2 out of the air, so it's not remotely a "either/or" proposition, if the theory is valid, then preparing for it is as basic intelligence as it gets.
Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands. Planes will only fly by jet engines, and electric cars, trucks, trains, all get their kilowatts from some form of enegy generation, which right now is mostly from burning things. Logically we should be jumping all over 4th generation nuclear plant designs and funding research into fusion hugely, but somehow most of the people who are enthusiastic about reducing CO2 output reject any such ideas.
The rising sea levels... well, the sea has been rising for a very long time, very slowly. So far we haven't seen any of the many low lying islands of the world disappearing, not even the very low sand islands off the coast of my state. Everyone refers to these events as if half the Antarctic and all the Artic are gone, and the sea is up by a foot or more, but none of that has happened so far.
When the water in the Mindanao Trench comes up in temperature, then we'll know a lot. But the mass of the oceans and the heat capacity of water combine to be one heck of a heat sink, so in fact even if energy were being trapped, it would take a very, very long time to have any effect there.
And someone just had to throw in the "denialist" term again as part of their approach, which tells me that it's time for me to bow out of this exchange. Apparently there is no escaping the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality, that is not part of any truly reasonable thinking, whethere one has studied science or not. The points I've tried to register were about real science staying open to discussion without rancor and personal attacks, and that there's enough evidence to justify some questioning of the current popular theory about Climate Change. Clearly such thoughts are not welcome here.
The models do not attempt to calculate what RSS/UAH measure. A global surface trend is extracted from models. Comparing RSS to model output is not a valid comparison. Furthermore, it is not a way to validation of models. Your attempt to do so would suggest that you are judging climate science without actually reading the WG1 report.
Models have ENSO-like features but they cannot predict what ENSO will actually do and every model run will produce a different realisation. A proper validation is done when you compare estimates of surface temperature (not troposphere) to the range of model outputs (corrected for actual forcings). Models are doing fine in this comparison.
"Glaciers are melting, but they always have." Huh? They advanced during LIA. Glaciers are integrators of climate. Climate has changed in the past (when the external forcing change) and glaciers change with them. You seem to be implying that glaciers have made unforced changes but where is the evidence for that.
Did you actually look at the OHC graph I pointed to? How do you explain that by unforced natural variation?
If you look at science on hurricanes, you will see that AGW increases SSTs which fuel hurricanes but also increase upper level shear which hinders development. Which wins? Again you are making claims on climate science which are not actually made. That is a strawman argument and I would expect a scientist to know better.
I will other bits of your gish gallop to others (or moderators) but you again you are making a bunch wild claims with no supporting evidence in violation of comments policy on this site. Uninformed comment in not welcome on this site. You appear to be simply repeating long debunked claims of sort you hear on Fox news or pseudo-skeptic blogs.
What MarDivPhoto @376 said:
What the science says:
Note in particular the flat, and indeed, recently declining sea levels over the last 3000 years in Fig 13.3 a. That decline reversed itself sharply about 1850 as seen in Fig 13.3 b and e. Fig 13.3 is assessed in greater detail by SkS here:
The 1901 to 2010 figure is given as 1.7 [1.5-1.9] mm per year by the IPCC, so that the current rate (3.2 mm per year) is nearly twice the twentieth century average. aClearly MarDivPhoto's claim is simply not based on the data, whether assessed on millenial or centenial time scales. It is probably based on the common denier meme which averages sea level rise from the Last Glacial Maximum to the current era paying no attention to even thousand year long patterns in the data which clearly show such an average is deceptive rather than informative.
Again, MarDivPhoto [ @ 376 ], you demonstrate a decided deficiency in "total objectivity" in your assessments.
"Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands" [unquote] ~ there indeed you are indulging in fantasy . . . unless you are intending to include as "fraction" some very large fractions like eight-tenths and nine-tenths.
Yes, fusion power generation of electricity would doubtless be desirable : yet it fails the "practicable alternative" test, in that it is likely many decades away (and trillions of dollars away, probably). Far too much opportunity cost, there, for the next few decades.
Fission power generation ~ yes, practicable but not so practical on the "soon and large" scale we need. Think of the vast opportunity cost; the slow build and distant commisioning dates; the vulnerability to terrorist assault [kidnap of radioactive material, particularly]; and the vast decommissioning costs. And sadly, there's always the NIMBY politics.
So, seeing such a gamut of problems, why would you wish to propose fission power . . . if no AGW problem exists (in your opinion) ??
You yourself claim an absence of "much clearer picture of unmistakeable effects" [of global warming] ~ yet this is a point which almost every climate scientist in the world would disagree with (not to mention every peak scientific body, too). In effect, they describe your position as lacking objectivity.
Nevertheless, MarDivPhoto, keeping an open mind (in readers here) about such an important point . . . you sound like you should have little difficulty in stating a short list of cogent criteria which you would see as clear unmistakable clinchers re non-trivial global warming.
* No, that wasn't a trick question; I'm not trying to play "gotcha"; nor do I wish to play lawyer-type salami-slicing logic-chopping games where you get berated over a tenth of a degree here, a half degree there, or a thousand Gigatons of ice plus-or-minus. No, none of such intellectual dishonesty, in the slightest.
Though I am sure you realise that you will need to give non-trivial, non-catastrophic replies ~ remembering that such stuff as like: 100cm sea-level rise, zero sea-ice in the arctic summer, or the heat-induced uninhabitability of half of India . . . all those sorts of criteria are ones which I am sure an objective thinker would scorn to give (as being scientifically and morally unconscionable).
So, MarDivPhoto . . . what say you ?
What MarDivPhoto @376 said:
What the science says:
Clearly economic growth is already decoupling from carbon emissions, which partly driven by increased relative production of renewable energy. And contrary to MDP's assertions, Chinese CO2 emissions actually fell in 2014 (ie, the year after that covered by the report above):
Indeed, globally CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014. This has lead to some, probably premature, speculation that CO2 emissions have reached their peak. More probably they will tend to rise slowly over the coming decade, but CO2 emmissions are rising far slower than BAU scenarios project. That is because we are not in a BAU word. Rather, we are in a Kyoto, and now Paris world in which there are solid commitments by major polluters to reduce CO2 emissions, backed up by actual deeds.
Again MDPs' claim is based on what they would like to be the case, not on the actual data.
MarDivPhoto,
to address another of your wild claims, Jeff Masters, a national hurricane expert, says here:
"Typhoon Melor powered into the Central Philippines on Sunday night, December 13 (U.S. EST time) as a Category 3 storm with 125 mph winds. This was slightly below its peak intensity as a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds at 8 am EST Sunday, when Melor became the record-smashing 26th Northern Hemisphere Category 4 or stronger storm this year (previous record: just 18 such storms in 1997 and 2004,"(my emphasis)
I was waiting for an end of year summary but your coment is so far off base and without factual support that I had to cite it. This year crushed all the records for strong hurricanes. "Unknown natural cycles" does not cut it against these records. You appear to be in the group that says if the hurricane does not hit your house it did not happen. Worldwide strong hurricanes are setting records.
MarcDivPhoto @373.
You say "I was not accusing Dr. Mears of being in denial, I was pointing out that he posted data that is easily interpreted one way, and then chose to offer reasons why it should not be interpreted that way. I did not immediately claim he must be wrong, or that there cannot be a warming process going on."
Is that correct? You said @369 (an unsupported assertion) "Clearly the models are badly flawed, and in science, when your models don't work, you discard them."
Your position rests solely on this 'easy-interpretation-one-way' idea. As for a justification, this appears to involve two issues. There is the lack of warming issue which Mears does address but which you dismiss because you say it is based on a "belief" that warming is occurring, "not on reasoning." Accusing Mears' position here of depending on "belief" is wrong. He does address the idea of "errors in the fundamental model physics." And he gives his reasons for not giving them more credence. That is he knows of no "convincing evidence of model physics flaws." So which part of this is based on "belief" ?
The other issue you raise is less easy to understand. You present it @389,373&376 as you first issue indicating some attached importance but your argument is not evident to me. Why should should the "ups&downs of the chart from about 1994 or so make a classic SPC chart that shows a stable process" have any relevance here? I have encountered folk insisting the temperture record has, for instance, all the signs of a random walk (which it doesn't), or perhaps the spin of the Earth's core (which requires some diligent cherry-picking). It's a pretty diverse set, all told. But resemblance to a "classic SPC chart" is a new one on me, and its relevance is not apparent. How so?
Tom wrote: "Indeed, globally CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014. This has lead to some, probably premature, speculation that CO2 emissions have reached their peak. More probably they will tend to rise slowly over the coming decade,"
There have been recent reports (e.g. SkyNews) that emissions for 2015 could be down from last year. Thus, we shouldn't take the possibility that they have peaked off the table. It is certainly possible that developing countries will push up emissions in upcoming years faster than developed countries draw them down, but there is also a chance that it will go the other way. How much China and India invest in renewables deployment will probably be the biggest determinant.
What MarDivPhoto @376 said:
What the science says:
a) Wind:
b) Solar:
After adjustment for albedo and atmospheric absorption, the total power of surface falling solar energy is 161 (154-166) W/m^2:
Of that, just 30% falls on land, giving a global landfalling solar power resource of 24,633 (23,562-25,398) x 10^12 Watts. Of course, not all the land it falls on is suitable for solar power, and we will want to retain some solar energy for photosynthesis. That leads to estimates of a total available solar resource of from 50 - 1,565 x 10^12 Watts, ie, 2.8 to 88 times the total anthropogenic energy use. Those values represent in turn 0.2 to 6.6% of the total landfalling solar energy. Even taking the lowest value, and at 10% efficiency of energy conversion, that represents just 2% of land area to power 2.8 times our current energy use.
Quite patently from these figure, MDP's claim about the potential of solar and wind energy is absurd. We must therefore look for a non-absurd interpretation. The most likely of those is an assumption that solar and wind power technologies will not advance significantly from current capacities. At best such an assumption is dubious. However, in the discussion on solar and wind power, he advances as a solution increased research on fusion. If he does not allow the possibility of technological advancement for solar and wind, he ought also not to allow that possibility for fusion. Otherwise his argument comes down to special pleading. Indeed, worse than that, current photovoltaic energy efficiencies are significantly better than the 10% I assumed for the land area calculation, and prototypes for turbines accessing jetstream winds are already flying - and whats more than nuclear, producing power at better returns than current pylon based wind power. So he is not excluding the development of future technology at all, but excluding the deployment of below best practise current technology for solar and wind, while apealling to future fusion technology as an alternative. Brazen, I believe is the best description for his argument.
CBDunkerson @383, indeed. I was not trying to indicate that we would not peak now, but that the data is insufficient for that call which is likely optimistic given known development goals for India and China. I live in hope that the optimism is warranted.
MarDivPhoto @376 objects to the description "denialist". For the record, he introduced it twice before it was used by anybody else, and the single person that used it did not apply it to him. It appears that his condition for staying for the debate he started is that we not only not call him a "denier" or "denialist", but that we pretend that nowhere in the blogosphere are there people suitably so called - not even in the 2nd law of thermodynamics thread. If somebody cannot even admit that a common sort of behaviour can occur, it means, rather straightforwardly that they are in denial. In this case it is not hard to see why. As shown by me @378, 380 and 344 above, and by other commentors, MDP's arguments are radically disconnected from science. Indeed, they are disconnected in such a way that the label "denier" seems well deserved as applied to them in particular. It is no wonder then, that he launched his gish gallop then scurried away with his tail between his legs. He must know in his heart he has no hope of defending his absurd claims.
"Tail between his legs" Really? Being a combat veteran I have to laugh at such childish phrasings, but it simply reinforces what none of so many distinguished people seem to comprehend, that tolerance and courtesy used to be and should have remained central to reasoned discourse.
The US gov't agency just announced we've had 117 months of lowered hurricane activity here, which is anecdotal, just as the spate of typhoons in the Orient is. So whoever wishes to argue for their point of view can pick such data and go with it.
Someone asked, reasonably, what data I would find really compelling about warming occurring. The first answer would be if Dr. Mears' graph had shown a much clearer incline in temperatures for the last 15 years. If people don't happen to understand what SPC statistical practice is, I'm sorry, it's too long to go into here, but it's been a critical tool in industries since the 1930s and was one of the major tools that enabled Japanese auto manufacturers to produce much higher quality autos in the 1970s than we were making here. US industries have since re-adopted use of SPC broadly.
The second answer would be when the retreat of both Artic and Antartic ice becomes pronounced and continues every years for at least 4-5 years.
A third answer would be a very discernible change in coastlines throughout the world, with all of them moving inland.
All that said, if and when a steady increase in global temperture becomes unmistakeable to all, then proving it is only the result of CO2 increase from 300 to 500 ppm is still a huge question. As already stated, the models assume ppm changes in CO2 somehow bring on large changes in atmospheric humidity, but I know of no actual evidence of any such interaction.
I can only smile when someone points out that total wind energy in the world is enormous. So is tidal energy, so is solar energy. Actually tapping it all is the challenge. Will will build forests of wind turbines across most of the world, and watch the bird populations wither? A firm two years ago wanted to build a solar farm in the vast Southwest desert of the USA. They were stopped by an environmental group that filed a suit about the possible damage to the local ecology.
India and China are still building more coal fired plants, so no matter what the recent data say about less CO2 generation, it is guaranteed to keep going up for decades to come.
Worried about nuclear plants? France gets 75% of its power from a network of standardized and very safe nuclear plants, and even recycles some forms of nuclear leftovers. Thorium reactors are great technology that aren't being built. The actual dangerous nuclear waste is a nonproblem, buried deep underground in tectonically stable regions is as safe as can be. The Russians put it into dispersed liquid form and pump it down into dry oil well formations that were stable for millions of years, also a reasonable solution and it would sure be hard for anyone to get the stuff back from there.
Should we try to use energy more efficiently? Absolutely, energy wastage is a scandal in too many places. Should we explore as much practical use of hydro energy, solar energy, wind energy, and energy from the heat of the earth as possible? Absolutely. Should we recycle as much materials as possible, and get rid of the floating masses of plastic in the oceans, etc, replant forests, use water resources more carefully, etc.? Absolutely, all these are not just good ideas but necessary ones for the future. But should we jump into creating "carbon credit" exchanges that will make some brokers billionaires and raise the cost of living for everyone else? I think not.
Now I will apologize to all for thinking that perhaps I might be able to just introduce some contrasting thoughts about both science and how people, scientists especially, should be able to deal with each other. I should have realized right away that this forum is solely for people whose minds are made up very firmly already, and that the seemingly beloved practice of denigrating anyone not in the group by the deliberately negative term "denialist" (a term directly relating to true nefarious denial of horrific historical events by the Nazis) demonstrates a sad frame of mind that truly reasonable, courteous people would avoid.
In five years, or ten, or maybe 15, the facts will reveal themselves. Hopefully there won't be extreme warming after all, or if there is, we'll have been smart enough to prepare well for it. With that, I bid you adieu, and shake the dust of this place from my sandals.
MarDivPhoto @387 "can only smile" at the fact that just 2% of land area (not global area) can provide 2.8 times our power needs at 10% efficiency (or 1% of wind energy provid all our needs) but can provide no counter-argument except the rhetorical "Actually tapping it all is the challenge" before suggesting we must "build forests of wind turbines across most of the world and watch the bird populations wither" when the specific proposal he is rejecting involves airbourne turbines at 4600 meters altitude in the jets stream (and hence above almost all bird strikes) and involves power densities such that would require much less than 2% of land area to provide all the power we need.
This proves, if nothing else, that MDP's idea of scientific debate does not involve reading references.
As that is the only counter argument of mine MDP even adresses, I will leave it at that, save to note that:
1) Scientific debate occurs in scientific journals not in blogs. What occurs in blogs when you raise issues of science without becoming expert in the debate, without a comprehensive review of the literature, and the confident view that the great multitude of studies that do apply those rigours to their participation are wrong, is denial - not scientific debate.
2) It appears that leaving, "shaking the dust of your feet" is absolutely different to leaving with your tail between your legs, even though both involved leaving without properly responding to (or even properly reading and/or checking references of) the counter arguments that devestate their own.
3) Whatever MDP has been indulging in, it has no ressemblance to reasoned discourse, which of course requires critically looking at evidence, not just cherry picking tropes to confirm your prejudices.
Though this is veering off topic, coming from a manufacturing background, I can promise MDP that some of us here actually do understand the statistical process control (SPC) methods used by Toyota. But, you have to remember the "C" means "control." SPC is method by which you identify when a process if drifting outside control limits so you can take action. This is completely different from, and immensely more simple than, the statistical processes used in climate research. There are certainly related elements but I've worked with SPC for a long time and I can tell you, climate scientists are operating on an entirely different level of sophistication.
MDP: "Sun and wind will never make up more than a fraction of the energy that modern life desires and demands."
True, but nearly meaningless. After all, 9999/10000 is "a fraction". Thus, so long as we generate any amount of energy by any means other than sun and wind, those two sources will remain "a fraction". Thus, all you have really said is that we will never get 100% of our power from those two sources. Which no one disputes.
Your 'logic' on nuclear doesn't make much sense either. Given that nuclear costs are rising, and already higher than solar/wind, there isn't any economic reason to be 'jumping all over' the technology. Rather, it seems inevitable that nuclear power will continue to decline while solar and wind continue to grow. Even the IEA now projects solar and wind becoming dominant by 2050.
I can only smile too, when I see MDP refering to MA Rodger's initial response as an "attack." Perhaps that is because I have formed my opinion about attacks from perusing WUWT or CA, where physical threats or calls to hang people were not unusual. In my early days at SkS, I also endured all sorts of verbal abuse, in comparison to which MA Rodger's remarks would be considered pleasant conversation.
MDP is trying to use self rightneousness and indignation to distract from the following facts: his initial arguments were wrong, and ample evidence has been provided to show they were. His interpretation of Dr. Mears' point was also in error. Once evidence was provided, MDP tried to use rethorical talking points to dismiss it, none of which so far stands up to scrutiny.
Ignoring all other temperature records and using only the satellite measurements to argue that warming is not happening is not a scientific way to look at the problem. The weight of the evidence indicates that the satellite measurements are to be considered with skepticism. I see no skeptical mindset from MDP toward them, while he is eager to dismiss all other sources that are far more reliable. Where is the scientific skepticism?
He also attempted to argue beside the point with the nuclear thing. Rational people are not afraid of nuclear, they simply see how it is not practical on the necessary scale. Besides the waste aspect, the costs are enormous and the plants have limited life spans. These are not trivial problems. France is facing the very serious hurdle of aging nuclear power plants, while the next generation has shown to be 10 years behind schedule, billions of euros over budget and has not yet powered a light bulb. Some "experimental" technologies do way better than that.
The only reasons mankind would have to not eradicate completely coal burning in the next 50 years are political. They have to do with how much influence the barons of the coal industry have on policy making, not with the physical realities.
Plenty of unjustified self rightneousness and misplaced indignation, but nothing convincing for evidence and references.
For those who missed it this SkS post described how wind and solar (with a few additions) can power the entire economy. That is all power, not all electricity. There are a lot of wind generators but most land is unaffected. Bird life is not significantly affected. The objections of MDP are addressed.
As far as waiting another 5, 10 or 15 years, we already have. The world finally came around and agreed to start action in Paris. If you do not look for data and refuse to read what you are presented with you will never be convinced there is a need for action.
Very true, Michael sweet.
And let me add: Very well said, Philippe @391. I have been attending SkS for a far shorter time than you ~ so please correct me if my observations are faulty ~ but in that time of mine, I have generally noted that all [posting] newcomers have been treated with welcome & respect, wherever they have raised questions / objections / problems in a skeptical way (a genuinely skeptically scientific way, I mean).
And appropriately: the polite "kid gloves" treatment is sometimes not used, on those new posters who angrily insist that 2+2=3 . . . and whose tone and/or statements show an arrogant Dunning-Krugerism ( or, where more intelligent than that, nevertheless exhibit a self-crippling Motivated Reasoning so severe that they can't/won't see the wood for the trees).
The latter ones very often also exhibit a gigantic hubris or chutzpah . . . which might just be tolerable in an eminent scientist who is demonstrably & totally in the right . . . but which is a tiny bit tiresome otherwise, in the self-appointed Galileos who manage to be 99% in the wrong. Doubtless the hubris/chutzpah is some sort of over-compensation for inner anxiety [having noticed that all other scientists are "driving the other way"].
No one ever rejected nuclear power as a reality: it just isn't the solution to global warming. Nuclear Power exists because Nuclear Weapons exist.
If you are suggesting Nuclear Power is the solution to global warming then you are in effect suggesting the legitimacy of a pseudo-plutonium economy which has already been rejected globally a very long time ago.
Don't tell me you want to mine moon-rock for fusion, btw: that wasn't even laughed at globally by youtube!!
There has certainly not been a pause in US temperatures.
Considering 1995-99 as the base (zero) period:
The period 2000 to 2009 was 0.16 degrees C above zero.
The period 2010 to May 2015 is 0.33 degrees C above zero.
See this video showing how the changes from the 1990s to the 2000s were distributed across the US:
US Temperature Comparison 2000s vs 1990s
Deniers have been cherry picking both the starting date (the 1997/8 el Nino) and the data set (the RSS satellite data).
The RSS satellite data said there was a cooling trend if you start with 1998 data. LINK
There was a warming trend if you picked 2000 as the starting date instead of 1998. LINK
As of November 2016, there is a warming trend, even if you cherry pick 1998 as your starting date. LINK
[RH] Shortened links.
Here it says that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. But weren't 2013, 2009, and 2007 all hotter than 1998 as well?
That's what I determined after averaging these two data sets:
NASA land-ocean temperature data
NOAA land-ocean temperature data
(even though they use different bases for the abnormalities, we can still determine the relative ranks of years).
Good discussion. It would be helpfull to see here the data for 2014,2015, 2016, and 2017, to cinch the warming argument. An updated "escalator" would be dramatic.
Thanks.
[JH] Your suggestions have been shared with the SkS author team.
Recommended supplemental reading:
Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.
A University of Alaska Fairbanks professor and his colleagues in China constructed the first data set of surface temperatures from across the world that significantly improves representation of the Arctic during the "global warming hiatus."
Xiangdong Zhang, an atmospheric scientist with UAF's International Arctic Research Center, said he collaborated with colleagues at Tsinghua University in Beijing and Chinese agencies studying Arctic warming to analyze temperature data collected from buoys drifting in the Arctic Ocean.
"We recalculated the average global temperatures from 1998-2012 and found that the rate of global warming had continued to rise at 0.112C per decade instead of slowing down to 0.05C per decade as previously thought," said Zhang.
The new data also improved estimates of the global warming and the Arctic warming rate.
Added Arctic data shows global warming didn't pause, Phys.org, Nov 20, 2017
I often find myself in discussions with contrarians about the supposed "hiatus" of AGW from 1998. I'm happy to have these discussions as it appears to me to be a dishonest statistical trick to claim the hiatus i.e. the random picking of 1998 as the starting point. If they pick any other year it doesn't seem like they can get the desired result, from their perspective.
One of the claims that is made is that the IPCC acknowledge that the hiatus occurred and they point to things like box 9.2 in the AR5 report that is titled "Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years". Although, again, I don't have an issue in what is written there, my question is, why do the IPCC reports refer to this period at all and why use the term hiatus when this doesn't really fit with what is said? It just seems strange that they should talk about a period starting with such an anomolous year. Is it just to address the hiatus claims?