No Global Warming Since 1998?

[distraff]

The purpose of this thread is to address the question of whether global warming stopped in 2000, and more importantly whether this is a major problem for those who think most of the global warming is from human CO2 emissions.

Lets try to keep the topic about this and not about other global warming topics.

If we measure from 1998 there does not seem to be any global warming even while CO2 is rising.


The counter-argument is that temperatures don't go in strait lines and that there are many so-called hiatuses in global temperatures if we only measure over the short-term because of natural climate variations from the sun, volcanoes, and ocean currents.


Also it is countered that most global warming doesn't go into the sky. It goes into the oceans and oceans have warmed significantly since 2000. So there really has been no hiatus.


Also it is countered that there is no hiatus in temperatures if we correct for differences in how ships measures sea surface temperatures.
Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.


If scientists factor in satellite data from arctic areas we don't have surface temperature data for, then there is actually no pause in global warming.
RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half


This myth is officially refuted from five different angles.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Pause lives.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/02/el-nio-begins-to-curtail-the-pause

 

[Jack Hays]

Food for thought.

This is quite a compendium. As far as I'm concerned The Pause is the most important, and I'm glad to see it at #1. Also note the presence of Shaviv-Svensmark work on the list. This is unfortunately only going to make the AGW believers even more strident.

The Skeptic's Case
22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet. According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted. Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we…

Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet. According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.
Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.
But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list. . . .

 

[wist43]

Real Climate?? NOAA?? graphs showing the 1930's on a par with the 70's - how much Orwellian memory hole revision went into that?? I'm surprised you didn't trot out Mann's Hockey Stick, and say, "... here, proof!!"

 

[distraff]

The Pause lives.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/02/el-nio-begins-to-curtail-the-pause

Sorry Global Warming lives.
RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

 

[distraff]

Food for thought.

This is quite a compendium. As far as I'm concerned The Pause is the most important, and I'm glad to see it at #1. Also note the presence of Shaviv-Svensmark work on the list. This is unfortunately only going to make the AGW believers even more strident.

The Skeptic's Case
22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet. According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted. Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we…

Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet. According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.
Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.
But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list. . . .

You are like a URL dictionary. You don't argue, you post links.

Hey, here is a forum for you:
Link Exchange Forum

Enjoy!

 

[distraff]

Real Climate?? NOAA?? graphs showing the 1930's on a par with the 70's - how much Orwellian memory hole revision went into that?? I'm surprised you didn't trot out Mann's Hockey Stick, and say, "... here, proof!!"

If you think Climate Science is Orwellian then you certainly have not read 1981.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

temperature log


16:32, May 17th: 98F
11:48, May 31st: 77F
03:31 June 15th: 56F



denier logic:
It's going to be in the 30s for July!

 

[Steve Case]

The purpose of this thread is to address the question
of whether global warming stopped in 2000,

No, it hasn't stopped, the world has warmed up
around 0.75°C since the 1800s

more importantly whether this is a major problem for
those who think most of the global warming is from
human CO2 emissions.

The major issue is how much of the 0.75° is due to CO2.
None? Some? Most? or All? No matter what your answer,
the warming is no more than 0.75°. The task at hand is
to decide whether or not the warming caused by CO2 is a
problem or not. Just proving that warming is occurring
and that CO2 plays a role in it doesn't make the case.

Lets try to keep the topic about this and not about other
global warming topics.

The elephant in the room that you don't want to bring up
is the fact that the 0.75°C of warming so far falls way
short of the projections from the models and doesn't
represent a problem. That there has or hasn't been a
so-called pause really isn't important.

 

[Lord of Planar]

temperature log


16:32, May 17th: 98F
11:48, May 31st: 77F
03:31 June 15th: 56F



denier logic:
It's going to be in the 30s for July!

Wow.

You really are a tool.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

No, it hasn't stopped, the world has warmed up
around 0.75°C since the 1800s


The major issue is how much of the 0.75° is due to CO2.
None? Some? Most? or All? No matter what your answer,
the warming is no more than 0.75°. The task at hand is
to decide whether or not the warming caused by CO2 is a
problem or not. Just proving that warming is occurring
and that CO2 plays a role in it doesn't make the case.


The elephant in the room that you don't want to bring up
is the fact that the 0.75°C of warming so far falls way
short of the projections from the models and doesn't
represent a problem. That there has or hasn't been a
so-called pause really isn't important.

lol, tripling down on a bogus #.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Wow.

You really are a tool.

That is *the exact* 'thought process' in claiming there is a "pause".

Cherry picking reference states can lead to desired (yet stupid) conclusions.

 

[Mithrae]

lol, tripling down on a bogus #.

It's not a bogus number, that is the amount of warming since 1900 according to both GISS and HadCRUT, using a 30-year mean:

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Edit: Of course, come to think of it, there's not much of a pause in that view...

 

[KLATTU]

That is *the exact* 'thought process' in claiming there is a "pause".

Cherry picking reference states can lead to desired (yet stupid) conclusions.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many times. Just about every prominent warmist has acknowledged a pause.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry Global Warming lives.
RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

Just another attempt at statistical sleight of hand.

 

[Jack Hays]

You are like a URL dictionary. You don't argue, you post links.

Hey, here is a forum for you:
Link Exchange Forum

Enjoy!

As my critics never tire of pointing out, and as I have never denied, I'm not a scientist, I'm a historian. I therefore do what historians do: present the evidence.

 

[distraff]

No, it hasn't stopped, the world has warmed up
around 0.75°C since the 1800s

I asked if global warming stopped since 2000 not 1800. You are off by 200 years.

The major issue is how much of the 0.75° is due to CO2.
None? Some? Most? or All? No matter what your answer,
the warming is no more than 0.75°. The task at hand is
to decide whether or not the warming caused by CO2 is a
problem or not. Just proving that warming is occurring
and that CO2 plays a role in it doesn't make the case.

That is not the topic of the thread. The topic is about the supposed warming hiatus since 2000. If you want to discuss the cause of global warming then post on this thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/227327-whats-really-warming-world.html

The elephant in the room that you don't want to bring up
is the fact that the 0.75°C of warming so far falls way
short of the projections from the models and doesn't
represent a problem. That there has or hasn't been a
so-called pause really isn't important.

Again, I am not discussing warming since 1800. I am discussing warming since 2000.

You are wayyyy off topic.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

It's not a bogus number, that is the amount of warming since 1900 according to both GISS and HadCRUT, using a 30-year mean:

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Edit: Of course, come to think of it, there's not much of a pause in that view...

1860 to 1899 (and something around 1895 to 1899) is now "the 1800s"

Even if I ignore that, your graph doesn't show the 0.75 you claimed.

 

[distraff]

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many times. Just about every prominent warmist has acknowledged a pause.

I presented arguments in the OP against there being a pause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo

You only get a pause if you exclude arctic areas from surface temperature calculations. If you include these areas using satellite data then there is no warming at all.

 

[distraff]

Just another attempt at statistical sleight of hand.

So including temperature data from the entire planet instead of most of it is a "statistical sleight of hand?"

 

[Verax]

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many times. Just about every prominent warmist has acknowledged a pause.

Actually what we've all acknowledged is that there seemed to be missing heat and for a while there things didn't quite add up. Being that there is tremendous amounts of evidence of global warming we knew it was there somewhere but the deniers latched on and decided this is proof of agw being a sham. After more research and inspection much of the heat was found hiding in the ocean with some interesting decadal interactions we didn't know about and a better take on historical data revealed there wasn't much of a pause at all anyway. Also this "pause" was mostly an overstated myth being that it focused exclusively on surface temperatures and was also exacerbated by dishonest cherry picking of 1998 (an anomaly year) as the measure that all future surface temperatures were compared to relatively.

It's easy to think in black and white terms but that doesn't work very well for a large and complicated system like the Earth's climate.

 

[wist43]

If you think Climate Science is Orwellian then you certainly have not read 1981.

You're right, I have not read 1981, but I've read 1984 - or have you guys gone back and revised that down the memory hole too??

 

[Jack Hays]

So including temperature data from the entire planet instead of most of it is a "statistical sleight of hand?"

Another attempt to revise the record.

 

[distraff]

You're right, I have not read 1981, but I've read 1984 - or have you guys gone back and revised that down the memory hole too??

Well you caught me there. Just doing my job for the new world order. I enjoyed 1984. Al Gore is an excellent author and visionary isn't he to come up with a work like this.

I don't get it with these claims of an Orwellian scientific community. I hear climate skeptics trotting out papers written by dissenting scientists challenging the main-stream on climate change all the time. I think these "evil" scientists need to do a better job building their memory hole. If they did Jack Hays, Longview, and Code would be out of business.

What is really Orwellian is that Republican Governor Rick Scott has banned scientists from using the words "global warming," "climate change," and "sustainability" in State publications and broadcasts. So basically politicians are telling scientists what they can or cannot say.
Fla. gov. bans the terms climate change, global warming

For example when scientists are talking about sea level rise, Rick Scott told then to call it "nuisance flooding."

In this video Florida officials are asked about a FEMA required climate change mitigation plan and it becomes very apparent that the official questioned is not allowed to even mention the word 'climate change.' Totally hilarious but very very Orwellian.

 

[distraff]

As my critics never tire of pointing out, and as I have never denied, I'm not a scientist, I'm a historian. I therefore do what historians do: present the evidence.

I always thought that historians loved to write and describe things in detail. The field just sounds very literary to me. For example this guy likes to describe WWII in detail on his blog:
World War 2 History Blog

You are just the opposite. You just post links. If we are lucky you actually copy and paste some of the stuff in the link in your post. You don't actually discuss, argue, reason, or refute very much. These things are an art form and require good writing. What you do is not art and is certainly not what historians do.

You are not a historian. You are just some guy on the internet who is too lazy to actually come up with arguments and refutations. You just post links even when they don't adequately respond to the person you are quoting.