Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
It is not clear. Despite the CO2 emissions, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last 19 years, during the same time the IPCC's "climate experts" and others were telling us the Earth was going to become dangerously warm.
On its own, the CO 2 increase since 2005 should have caused a radiative forcing of 0.24 Watts per square meter, or 0.34 W m 2 after including the influence of all other greenhouse gases. Even without temperature feedbacks, according to the IPCCs methods this forcing should have caused 0.1 C warming. Adding in the IPCCs temperature estimates of temperature feedbacks and of previously-committed global warming should have caused up to 0.3 C warming since January 2005. None has occurred.
I know of no obvious reason for the 0.1C temperature rise 1998-2003, nor for the basically flat temperatures before and after.
Debates about those claims revolve around several contentious issues. Key among these are: whether there is, in fact, reason for alarm; what reliable evidence supports that supposition; i.e., what degrees of impact do human have versus natural influences on global temperature changes (both warming and cooling); and what trends can be observed and projected to guide prudent responses? It is not my intent to argue that the global climate has been cooling since the late 1970s, but merely to present a case that there is no convincing evidence that it has been warming.
The IPCC and other scientists have branded this as a pause in climate change. Ball said that characterization implies that temperatures are temporarily holding steady and will inevitably rise again soon. He said that conclusion is dead wrong.
A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming.
What this means:The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.5F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Nio events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010 .
From observations such as these, it is not possible to place any faith in the IPCCs values for climate sensitivity, which have always been highly speculative. In fact, global temperature since 1980 has been rising at half the rate originally predicted by the IPCC in its First Assessment Report in 1990, and, since 1995, has not risen in any statistically-significant sense at all.
Finally, I defy anyone to show me an anthropogenic effect anywhere in these results. Most of the proxies that cover the period 1900-2000 show cooling temperatures, not warming temperatures as the authors claim.
Last months Al Gore / AIT Index had Al Gore ever-so-close to positive territory, and if temperatures had gone up a smidgen more in March Al Gore would have recorded only his second month out of the thirty-eight months since An Inconvenient Truth was released with an average temperature above what it was on that date. But, it was not to be for Al Gore. Temperatures took a big dive down from February to March, going down .18F (.10C).
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, weve actually had temperatures DROPPING !
As shown, the 120-month (decadal) trends have been slightly negative since about 2011. In other words, global temperatures have been coolingslightly. Working back in time, they came close to reaching a zero trend (no warming or cooling) for the period ending about January 1997, but they dont quite reach it. That means we have to go back another decade, to January 1987, until we can see the decadal trends reach zero again, but they dont drop appreciably below it. Its not until the late 1970s that a significant decade-long cooling period exists.
6) Do you agree that temperatures for the last 40 years are about the same on average as the period 1931-70? If so is there any reason not to regard current temperatures as anything other than "normal" (by 20th C standards!!).
5. Inconvenient US Cooling. The government's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration covering the period from January 2005 to April 2014 reveal a decade-long cooling trend for the US (contiguous 48 states), see chart above.
This makes what has happened in the past decade all the more remarkable. Because the greenhouse effect wants to force the temperature up which in the absence of a cooling influence is what would have happened, the fact that the temperature has remained constant indicates that whatever has been cooling the planet has had to increase in strength at precisely the same rate as the CO2 warming in order to keep the temperature a constant straight line.
Prominent global warming alarmist James Hansen admits in a new paper that temperatures are not warming as fast as predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Hansen observes that carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than IPCC forecasts, yet global temperatures are not following suit. Hansen speculates that emissions from coal-fired power plants emissions are fertilizing the biosphere and providing valuable nutrients that aid tissue growth. The extra tissue growth soaks up atmospheric carbon dioxide, which mitigates some of the IPCC??s expected warming.
You have to laugh at the idea of global warming science moving beyond such simplistic questions as whether the globe??s surface is actually warming. No doubt this change of emphasis is unconnected to the failure of the said surface to actually, erm, get any warmer.
Even though CO2 concentrations are increasing, annual mean temperature in Germany is cooling. Originally a warming of 0.4C per decade was announced. Instead a cooling of more than 0.2C per decade has actually been observed! Chart by J. Kowatsch, data from the German Weather Service (DWD).
Surely the temperature has to start going up. Thats what all the current fuss is about. A few years ago the Met Office said that most of the following five years would be record breakers. When it was obvious they were wrong a new model said there would be no change. It is not a minor downward adjustment as Hickman calls it. Its the difference between record warming and no warming, the difference between our understanding and ignorance of the science. Say what you will about regional climate change, accumulating energy in the system, natural fluctuations, man-made aerosols etc, the temperature has to rise eventually. We are all, sceptic or otherwise, waiting for the global temperature to rise. We have been since 1997. --David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 January 2013
Over the last decade, temperatures have fallen. This is due to all the CO2 we pumped into the atmosphere 30-50 years ago.
10. The claim that we must act now are misleading because it implies temperatures are rising at a dangerous rate. In fact, global temperatures since 1998 have not passed that 1998 peak, and early 2008 global average temperatures are marginally less than the equivalent period of 1988 (repeating: 1988, not 1998).
Rebuttal: Here the Greens make a huge blunder. First off, theres not been any warming in 12 years. So how can anyone claim temperatures continue their rise? The end of the warming coincided with the end of the 60-year PDO warm phase, which has impacted temperatures over the last several hundred years, see the correlation in the chart that follows:
Just like global temperatures, Arctic ones have been flat. Yet Arctic amplification is supposed to be driving temperatures there up at much faster rates.
Why do you not mention that the global mean temperature of the earth has not risen over the past 18 years, even though the CO2 atmospheric concentration of the atmosphere has risen during the same period?
In other words, in 2009 Murphy was writing about a global cooling (not warming) trend that even climate alarmist Phil Jones admitted began in 1998.
UN Trapped in Climate Turmoil CHURCHVILLE, VAThe man-made warming activists at the UN are trapped in turmoil over how to deal with the earths lack of warming since 1998. A week or so ago, the UN climate panel circulated a draft statement that would have admitted were unlikely to have any further earth-warming for the next 30 years because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.
The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.
In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced about 1980 global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting.
The ACC report says that 2000-09 was the warmest decade since modern measuring began. But that is because it commenced at a warm level. To pick another decade, 2003-12 was notably cool in comparison.
In addition, a paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds that daily temperature range in China decreased from 1962 to 2011 , and that this decrease was due to a decrease in maximum temperatures related to a decrease of sunshine durations over this period. Similar to the findings of this paper, examination of the raw global temperature data shows a significant increase in minimum temperatures over the period 1962-1989, and then leveling off 1989-present. However, over the entire period 1940-present, there is no trend in minimum, maximum, or average global temperature anomalies.
I suspect in response to that slowdown in surface warming statement we might see some flawed arguments that global warming continues, along with some graphs that show long-term (1900 to 2014) and short-term (1998-2014) trends are comparable. See my Figure 1. Similar graphs have appeared around the blogosphere.
* There has been no statistical global warming for the past 17 years most of today's high school students haven't witnessed it in their lifetimes.
Morano: "Global temperatures have been at a standstill. How do you make that sound scary? You make a bunch of scary predictions about a hundred years from now and you say "Hey it's worse than we thought' You respond: "What's worse? Global temperatures haven't gone up' and the climate activists answer is "The predictions of the future are now much worse than they were a few years ago.
For the first time, half of the world??s heads of government met in one place. And what did they talk about? Ending poverty? Nah. Making free trade freer? Nopenhagen. After 15 straight years with no statistically-significant ???global warming?? on any measure, they talked about the need to Save The Planet from ??? er ??? ???global warming??. After nine straight years of statistically-significant, rapid global cooling, culminating in a snowstorm of unprecedented severity and extent that swept right across Europe and North America, they tried to tell each other, and us, how urgent the ???global warming?? problem was, and how necessary it was to reach a legally-binding deal to shut down the economies of the capitalist West wholesale.
Unfortunately, for all those scientists who went along with the scheme, now, over a decade later, there is a big problem. Contrary to what all those scientists living on their Federal research grants predicted, the world hasn??t been getting warmer. In fact, for the last 7 years, there has been no warming at all, which has been verified even by, for example, Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Organization. He??s their Secretary General. He reluctantly admitted that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, according to a BBC article. Global snowfall is at record levels and there are fewer, not more, hurricanes.
Focussing on the recent period in more detail, the onset of the current pause coincides with a maximum in upper ocean heat uptake around 2002, and may reflect a recovery both from Mount Pinatubo and from the record 1997/98 El Nio. A recent study (Guemas et al, 2013) shows that, in 2002, the upper ocean below the mixed layer took up heat, while the mixed layer and sea surface temperature did not warm. The onset of the pause may therefore have been caused by ocean processes, predominantly in the tropical Pacific, in which energy trapped by greenhouse gases was buried below the surface of the ocean.
The new argument therefore is that the temperature has not risen over the last 10 years. This is indeed correct, both the GISTEMP series and the HadCRUT4 dataset in which missing areas have been interpolated by Cowtan & Way show a trend of 0.00 K/decade over 20052014. To investigate further why the trend has been zero since 2005 it is useful to consider the land and ocean separately.
The twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record, nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study.
And I say that knowing there has been a pause in temperatures since 1998. Like James Hansen. Its easy to see. But you know what? There have been pauses beforetwo in the modern temperature recordand when they finished, temperatures did not resume a random nature. They just kept climbing. The pause has been a plateau. Looking at the temperature record would have us bet (not the farm, not our livelihood, but a modest wager) that when this pause concludes temperatures will rise again.
The satellite datasets had shown no warming for 18 years 4 months (UAH) or 18 years 5 months (RSS), and the ocean, perhaps the best indicator of the underlying warming rate, had been warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a degree per across the entire 11-year run of bathythermograph data.
"Not only does the RSS satellite dataset show no global warming from December 1996 to April 2015, which is more than half of the entire satellite record," Monckton writes , "But the warming trend since 1900 is roughly 0.8C per century, well within natural variability." NOAA also expects that the higher CO2 levels will remain that way through May, but drop to lower levels as plants in the Northern Hemisphere begin to bloom, utilizing the CO2 for photosynthesis in the spring and summer.
Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models.
Figure 6. Despite a near-linear increase of 2 atm/year in CO2 concentration (NOAA, 2013, gray), the least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) has been zero for 17 years 3 months (207 months).
NASA has condensed all we need to know about climate change over the last 60 years into a 15 second video. I suppose they mean CAGW when they use climate change. They described the warming as unprecedented and appear to have a new response to the pause in increasing temperature. Gavin Schmidt is concerned that the temperature hasnt decreased over this period. First they didnt predict the pause and now they have another concern?
Of course the confusion here may be worsened by the fact that we aren't "currently seeing" any climate change by the headline measure: there has been no global warming for perhaps 15 years.
6. Inconvenient Lack of Global Warming. According to the most recent Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite data through May 2014, the global warming trend in the nearly 18 years since September 1996 is zero (see chart above, source here).
Fossil fuels allowed man to live his life as a proud human, but the IPCC asserts its use causes catastrophic global warming. Fortunately, the global warming claim by the IPCC that For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenario is not supported by observations as shown in Figure 1, which shows a plateau for the global mean temperature trend for the last decade.
From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of over that 30-year period, Moore said. Then there was a 30-year pause until 1970. This was followed by an increase of during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature.
The plot below needs little explanation. The globally average surface temperature hasnt warmed in over 18 years according to the RSS satellite dataset.
#5. CO2 is not even causing the much ballyhooed, hoped-for, at a minimum, tiny "statistically significant" warming. Indeed, for time spans now approaching two decades statistically significant warming is nowhere to be found - in fact, the RSS lower atmosphere satellite measurements show no statistically significant warming over the last 23 years
Knappenberger noted that despite the panels climate models, the earth does not appear to have warmed over the past 15 years.
Dr. Santer also thinks that volcanic aerosols are an important factor in the hiatus, but probably only up to 25%. He acknowledges that natural long term cycles (mainly the AMO and the PDO ) may contribute significantly, but these are poorly understood and not in the models. Some of the models do attempt to capture the shorter term ENSO cycle, or parts of it. ENSO is clearly not the cause of the hiatus.
The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 170-month period that ended about 2004 2006, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as youll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the mid-1970s was the last time there had been a 170-month period with a global warming rate that lowbefore recently.
The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with substantial confidence that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
The last time global surface temperatures warmed at this low a rate for a 205-month period was the late 1970s, or about 1980. Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as youll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.
Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed and more recently almost stalled.
The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 163-month period that ended about 2004, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as youll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the mid-1970s was the last time there had been a 161-month period without global warmingbefore recently.
44) " This is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate."
Baltimore sea level is rising at about the same rate as it was in 1910, when global temperatures were supposedly cold and falling. Obviously what is happening in Baltimore has nothing to do with global warming.
It is seen that the rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. This IPCCs analysis does not support an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the latter 20 th century, and hence the data does not support the IPCCs conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.
The blue line shows atmospheric CO2 during the same period. CO2 has risen substantially during the last 50 years, but the rate of sea level rise has been constant.
Temporal comparisons at five bay stations over two periods, 1944-1975 and 1976-2007, suggest that, while RSL continues to rise at some of the highest rates found along the U.S. Atlantic coast, there is presently no evidence of a statistically significant increase marking an acceleration in RSL rise at any of the five bay stations.
A new discussion paper published in Ocean Science evaluates multi-mission satellite sea level records and shows that the rate of sea level rise has greatly decelerated since ~2002, as has been documented in prior research finding sea level rise decelerated 31% since 2002, and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century . This is obviously the opposite of climate model predictions in response to a steady rise in CO2 greenhouse gas levels, but is compatible with the ongoing "pause" of global warming.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people . In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
Another grossly inaccurate claim which totally ignores our adaptive response involves sea level rise. Al Gore likes to show maps of what coastal areas look like presently, and what they would look like assuming a multi-meter sea level rise. A dramatic section of Gores An Inconvenient Truth showed some before and afters of coastal locations under Gores scenario of a 20 foot sea level rise that would happen f Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the seaor half of Greenland and half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea. For a dose of reality, a recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters pegged the current rate of sea level rise contributed by Antarctica and Greenland combined at 6 inches/century. How inconvenient.
Conclusion: Tide gauge station analysis confirms global sea level rise is modest and not dangerously accelerating as long predicted by the IPCC's climate models and its "experts."
For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level, Giaever said.
This is confirmed by the annual Atlantic Ocean Sea Level data. Refer to Figure 8. Atlantic Ocean Sea Levels remained relatively flat in 2006, then dropped in 2007. http://i34.tinypic.com/m7b994.jpg Figure 8
Sea level rise is not accelerating. In fact the recent rise since 1993 is similar to the 1930-1950 period.
(1) The official Australian claim of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
The critics last remark in this section seems to obfuscate the rather obvious point that we currently cannot say that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Without such evidence, the choice of whether to be concerned or not is essentially a matter of personal preference.
What astonished me was the sea levels first recorded by the Topex Poseidon satellite array showed virtually no rise at all from 1993-2001. Surely not, I thought. I asked sea-level expert Nils Axel-Morner, and he confirmed: ???Yes, it is as bad as that. ??? Now, given that Envisat (the European satellite) showed no rise from 2003-2011 (until it was adjusted) that means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise.