Most scientists will argue that taking 1998 as the starting point automatically begets a false conclusion, as this year was particularly hot, thanks to strong El Nino conditions transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.

“Taking 1998 as the starting year is a joke,” says Pieter Tans, a climate scientist who worked on the IPCC report. “Why not 1997 or 1999? Anyone doing this gets an ‘F’ grade in introductory statistics.

“It is too early for us to be able to say that the human-caused warming has stopped. I fully expect the long-term warming to continue because we know that our activities are causing the greenhouse gases to increase, and we can calculate based on very well understood physics, how the GHGs retain heat in the atmosphere.”

He adds: “There is no ‘Greenhouse Warming Hypothesis’. The warming expectation follows directly from established physics and chemistry.”

The AR5 is expected to confirm that each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850, with the first decade of the 21st century topping all the charts.

This contrasts sharply to the idea that the fifteen years between 1998 and 2012 has been a period of global “cooling”, as some sceptics like to claim.

This demonstrates the necessity of looking at longer term trends, rather than cherry picking data over a short period of time. This is particularly in climate science, where trends are observed over centuries, rather than year on year.

I have no problem listening to arguments about how futile the efforts of many governments are in tackling the issue of climate but I do struggle with the argument of the existence of climate change.

Are there alarmists suggesting we are all going to incinerate within 5 years - of course. Are there still natural forces that can impact modelling - of course and are the models 100% accurate ? - no. Does overwhelming scientific opinion acknowledge the existence of this problem and suggest it is only going to get worse - yes.

Most scientists will argue that taking 1998 as the starting point automatically begets a false conclusion, as this year was particularly hot, thanks to strong El Nino conditions transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.

“Taking 1998 as the starting year is a joke,” says Pieter Tans, a climate scientist who worked on the IPCC report. “Why not 1997 or 1999? Anyone doing this gets an ‘F’ grade in introductory statistics.

“It is too early for us to be able to say that the human-caused warming has stopped. I fully expect the long-term warming to continue because we know that our activities are causing the greenhouse gases to increase, and we can calculate based on very well understood physics, how the GHGs retain heat in the atmosphere.”

He adds: “There is no ‘Greenhouse Warming Hypothesis’. The warming expectation follows directly from established physics and chemistry.”

Why wont you quote me and answer my questions? I will happily answer any of yours.

There is no rapid warming unless you choose a strategic starting point and stopping point. Rapid warming inline with alarmist predictions went from 1977 to 1998. If you wont concede the hiatus from 1998 until 2015 (and going), how can you claim the warming when they are both over similar time periods?

Did client scientist Pieter Tans predict that the world would stop warming from 1998 with his established physics and chemistry?

P-man do you deny the hiatus? Do you argue there is statistically significant warming since 1998?

This is where you and I clearly differ.

In my job and in life as a general rule, I pay most attention to the opinions of experts. What I don't do is try to jump to conclusions based on data sets that I don't have the expertise to analyse.

Whilst there may have been a less than expected rise in atmospheric temperature since 98 that skeptics have latched into with glee, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists still agree that climate change is occurring and must be acted upon, pointing to such evidence as the world's oceans heating at the rate of two trillion 100-watt light bulbs burning continuously, 2014 being the hottest year on record, the polar ice caps melting at six times the rate of the previous decade etc etc.

Until the 97% are the ones saying that a hiatus is meaningful and debunks the idea of human induced climate change, I will continue to respect the opinions of those who know what they're talking about, and base my own views upon theirs.

Why wont you quote me and answer my questions? I will happily answer any of yours.

There is no rapid warming unless you choose a strategic starting point and stopping point. Rapid warming inline with alarmist predictions went from 1977 to 1998. If you wont concede the hiatus from 1998 until 2015 (and going), how can you claim the warming when they are both over similar time periods?

Did client scientist Pieter Tans predict that the world would stop warming from 1998 with his established physics and chemistry?

my starting was 1850 ?

Cherry picking any 15 years will give you a varying result - I think that is the point

This is where you and I clearly differ.

In my job and in life as a general rule, I pay most attention to the opinions of experts. What I don't do is try to jump to conclusions based on data sets that I don't have the expertise to analyse.

Whilst there may have been a less than expected rise in atmospheric temperature since 98 that skeptics have latched into with glee, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists still agree that climate change is occurring and must be acted upon, pointing to such evidence as the world's oceans heating at the rate of two trillion 100-watt light bulbs burning continuously, 2014 being the hottest year on record, the polar ice caps melting at six times the rate of the previous decade etc etc.

Until the 97% are the ones saying that a hiatus is meaningful and debunks the idea of human induced climate change, I will continue to respect the opinions of those who know what they're talking about, and base my own views upon theirs.

we stand in the same shoes.

This is where you and I clearly differ.

In my job and in life as a general rule, I pay most attention to the opinions of experts. What I don't do is try to jump to conclusions based on data sets that I don't have the expertise to analyse.

Whilst there may have been a less than expected rise in atmospheric temperature since 98 that skeptics have latched into with glee, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists still agree that climate change is occurring and must be acted upon, pointing to such evidence as the world's oceans heating at the rate of two trillion 100-watt light bulbs burning continuously, 2014 being the hottest year on record, the polar ice caps melting at six times the rate of the previous decade etc etc.

Until the 97% are the ones saying that a hiatus is meaningful and debunks the idea of human induced climate change, I will continue to respect the opinions of those who know what they're talking about, and base my own views upon theirs.

Don't you find it a little curious that the scientists who are saying the hiatus is not meaningful are also the ones who didn't predict it in the first place?

we stand in the same shoes.

No you don't. P-man is actually giving a reasonable argument.

No you don't. P-man is actually giving a reasonable argument.

You got on answer on your oft repeated "1998" - I'm not sure what more you want.

Take small random samples from ANY 15 years and you will get fluctuating results.

You ask me to go back to prior 1998 to see where scientists discussed ocean warming as factor that would cause a "hiatus" in the warming. I haven't looked and maybe they didn't. Because they didn't predict it - because the heating occurring in the last 15 years has been in the oceans rather than the atmosphere - does that make the final outcome wrong ?

"Don't you find it a little curious that the scientists who are saying the hiatus is not meaningful are also the ones who didn't predict it in the first place?" - it is obvious you don't accept any of the explanations on this hiatus.

Does providing reasons after the event due to gaining more knowledge and insight, rather than foreseeing it before the event make it any less valid.

Don't you find it a little curious that the scientists who are saying the hiatus is not meaningful are also the ones who didn't predict it in the first place?

I am curious as this thread is the first I've heard of a "hiatus", which scientists DID predict it?

can someone put up a global temp graph for say 1950-2014 so we can see if there is any cherry picking

can someone put up a global temp graph for say 1950-2014 so we can see if there is any cherry picking

I tried a google image search, and there are a lot of results. I have no way of knowing which one is reliable though.

I tried a google image search, and there are a lot of results. I have no way of knowing which one is reliable though.

HadCRUT4 is the data set to put up but I am not sure how to post it.

Please google it if you think I am "cherry picking" but it is THE data set.

I am curious as this thread is the first I've heard of a "hiatus", which scientists DID predict it?

None that I am aware of but I am happy to be proven wrong.

You ask me to go back to prior 1998 to see where scientists discussed ocean warming as factor that would cause a "hiatus" in the warming. I haven't looked and maybe they didn't. Because they didn't predict it - because the heating occurring in the last 15 years has been in the oceans rather than the atmosphere - does that make the final outcome wrong ?

This is disputed by NASA and only a desperate hypothesis as to why the original hypothesis that CO2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur.

from hadcrut4

from hadcrut4

Thanks daisycutter. Hiatus from 1998 globally confirmed.

This is disputed by NASA and only a desperate hypothesis as to why the original hypothesis that CO2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur.

You may have information to the contrary but below is straight off the NASA website - please - when you produce the NASA information which debunks the hypothesis - can you also highlight where NASA included that not only do they dispute it but the rationale of warming ocean rather than warming atmosphere is a "desperate hypothesis as to why he original hypothesis that C)2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur". ( sounds like something that NASA would say)

Warming oceans

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Still not getting how this "hiatus" disproves climate change?

Those graphs, to my uneducated eye, show a significant increase in temperate since 1980. The rate of growth in average temperatures then flattens out at the end.

How does this disprove that it got hotter? All I see is it not getting hotter as fast any more.

If things like coral bleaching have already occurred during the period of increased heat, and we're still that hot, isn't it a good idea to try to bring the temperature back down again?

Since we're already past 0.5 degrees hotter than we were, and I've read somewhere that 2 degrees is disaster territory ecologically speaking, we're already over a quarter of the way to the danger zone. Maybe we should look at ways to avoid going the whole way?

You may have information to the contrary but below is straight off the NASA website - please - when you produce the NASA information which debunks the hypothesis - can you also highlight where NASA included that not only do they dispute it but the rationale of warming ocean rather than warming atmosphere is a "desperate hypothesis as to why he original hypothesis that C)2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur". ( sounds like something that NASA would say)

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Still not getting how this "hiatus" disproves climate change?

It doesn't completely but given the "science" that is apparently settled didn't predict or foresee the hiatus it casts down on their other predictions.

Still not getting how this "hiatus" disproves climate change?

Those graphs, to my uneducated eye, show a significant increase in temperate since 1980. The rate of growth in average temperatures then flattens out at the end.

How does this disprove that it got hotter? All I see is it not getting hotter as fast any more.

If things like coral bleaching have already occurred during the period of increased heat, and we're still that hot, isn't it a good idea to try to bring the temperature back down again?

Since we're already past 0.5 degrees hotter than we were, and I've read somewhere that 2 degrees is disaster territory ecologically speaking, we're already over a quarter of the way to the danger zone. Maybe we should look at ways to avoid going the whole way?

choke, have a look at the temp scale on the left hand side

what do you define as significant?

How does this disprove that it got hotter? All I see is it not getting hotter as fast any more.

Everyone agrees it has got hotter since The Little Ice Age in 1850. It has just stopped warming since 1998 which is contrary to all the IPCC's predictions. Whilst there has been a hiatus in global temperatures man made CO2 has been expelled into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels. If you believe the theory then the global temperature should have gone up during that period.

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

thanks for that...

did you miss this part of article ?

Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

and ....did you miss this part of the article ?

Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

hmmm unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up ? Interesting language - I scoured the article for the bit about "desperate hypothesis" but I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

choke, have a look at the temp scale on the left hand side

what do you define as significant?

Good point daisycutter .

Also 1910 to 1940 looks to have increased at a very similar rate. Could it be that CO2's effect on climate is completely over stated?