There never was a “pause” in global warming.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
The 1998 year was an super strong El Nino year and temperatures would always flat out a bit after that. A prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases.
There is a clear cycle in solar activity of around 11 years. This has some effect on short-term climate, though it tends to average out over longer time periods. For example, the unusually low solar output in after 2009 may have contributed to slower warming of the Earth’s surface between 1998 and 2013
Study suggests three periods of global warming slowdown since 1891 due to natural temporary causes
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-pe...
ALL AVAILABLE TEMPERATURE DATA, INCLUDING SATELLITES, WEATHER STATIONS AND OCEAN DATA, SHOWS THE SAME WARMING TREND of 1.1 C (2.0 F) since about 1880
GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
What Is Earth's Average Temperature?
From the Berkeley Earth page:
Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.
Watch the history of Berkeley:
Here is the best known, the GISS data from NASA:
NASA GISS corrects for urban heat islands. This is the reason why they don't use raw data. The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.
Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records
HERE ARE DATA FOR EUROPE:
Global and European temperature
Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index...
Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:
RSS: This is from their home page:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/late...
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/April2019/GTR_201904Apr_1.pdf
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
RSS AND UAH SATELLITE DATA TOGETHER:
It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 C per decade!
Even a Koch-brothers funded study which set out to disprove GW, confirmed the temperature data:
https://www.theguardian.com/scie...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ale...
The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:
Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon Brief
BONUS. LETS ADD A RANDOM GRAPH FROM SOME METS SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD…
BONUS :
Japanese data shows same trend :
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc...
Lets go to Russia: According to observations provided by the meteorological network of Roshydromet, the warming in Russia was 1.29°C for the last 100 years (1907–2006). https://www.climatechangepost.co...
https://new.meteoinfo.ru/images/...
Ok then, lets do one more random mets from somwhere in the world. Lets go to Denmark.
Here are their observations since 1870:
The ten warmest years are spread from the 30s and up to now. In fact, almost every year since 1988, it has been warmer than usual, where "normally" is defined as the average for the period 1961-90. And the land temperature has shown a sharp rise in recent decades. Since 1870 the temperature in Denmark has increased by about 1.5 ° C.
Pick any nation of the world and check to see if their mets have a similar temperature trend to the global GISS temperature trend from NASA!
The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record
June 2019:
Study: NASA’s estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.
The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth's global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.
april 2019:
NASA confirms global warming trends, says 2015, 2016 and 2017 were hottest on record
The various surface temperature records have been independently validated by complementary measurements from a NASA satellite with better spatial coverage and higher resolution (AIRS):
"AIRS data complement GISTEMP because they are at a higher spatial resolution than GISTEMP, and have more complete global coverage.
Both data sets demonstrate the earth's surface has been warming globally over this period, and that 2016, 2017, and 2015 have been the warmest years in the instrumental record, in that order.
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-na...
The research paper is here (full copy available):
https://iopscience.iop.org/ar…/1...
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
For 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century Average
Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn’t hold up to statistical testing.
New science in december 2018:
"The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing models to observations" | New article in Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) by Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan Rahmstorf, Naomi Oreskes, myself & others: http://iopscience.iop.org/art…/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/meta
That Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New Studies Explain Why.
A Lack of Arctic Data
The notion of a pause in warming from approximately 1998 to 2012, was fueled in part by incomplete data and erroneous projections that have since been corrected, the studies conclude.
It's long been obvious that if there had been any blip in the trends it was temporary. The years that followed have hit new temperature records.
And new evidence has made clear why some were fooled.
Scientists know, for example, that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than the planet as a whole, but there weren't enough temperature observations from the Arctic in the early 2000s to accurately measure the changes that were occurring there. As a result, data sets on global temperature tended to omit the Arctic until recently, when researchers came up with a better way to extrapolate data from the region.
"We simply didn't have all the information available at the time," Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher at the University of Bristol and lead author of the climate modeling report said.
BONUS:
The RSS data as misrepresented by deniers:
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
BONUS 1:
Climate scientists have never said "earth's surface temperature will rise steadily because of our c02 emissions". Climate change / GW is about this:
Earths energy balance is disturbed. Due to our emissions - especially of greenhouse gases and aerosols - more energy is being absorbed in the climate system than energy emitted.
The "climate system" means the seas, the atmosphere, the land, the glaciers, the poles and so on. The whole earth, in other words, but especially the seas and the atmosphere since these are the ones that can change fastest. "
Since energy is preserved and never lost, consuming more energy than what is emitted, it must be stored somewhere in the climate system. Sometimes as higher ground temperature, sometimes as consumed by the oceans.
This sensible heat, when it is completely at the surface of the earth, is what we often mean when we talk about "global warming." As you can see, this is a very misleading and confusing term. We should talk about a "global energy surplus".
It is also well known the surface temperature moves up more like a staircase rather than straight up:
"With global warming you don't see a gradual warming from one year to the next," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
"It's more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again."
"Surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change," he said. "Looking at the total energy stored by the climate system or multiple indicators--glacier melting, water vapor in the atmosphere, snow cover, and so on -- may be more useful than looking at surface temperature alone." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031142738.htm
Summed up.
We should RATHER talk about a "global energy surplus". Our C02 emissions wont show as an increase in global surface temperatures EVERY year.
Climate deniers will use these “pauses” to claim that global warming have stopped or that C02 is not causing global warming. But there is still more energy absorbed in the climate system than energy emitted even during these “pauses”.
BONUS 2:
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth’s surface temperature from the ground or from space?
Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it’s safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.
Here’s why:
- Satellites measure the brightness of Earth’s atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet’s complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
- Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
- Satellites measure the brightness of Earth’s atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters)