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.
"We estimated a new rate of Arctic warming at 0.659 C per decade from 1998-2014. Compared with the newly estimated global warming rate of 0.130 C per decade, the Arctic has warmed more than five time the global average," said Zhang.
The team developed new methods of incorporating the Arctic temperature data into global temperature data so that they could better estimate the average temperatures. Most current estimates use global data that tend to represent a long time span and provide good coverage of a global geographic area. But the remote Arctic lacks a robust network of instruments to collect temperature data.
To improve the dataset in time and space, the team relied on temperature data collected from the International Arctic Buoy Program at the University of Washington. For global data, the team used newly corrected sea surface temperatures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Zhang said this study expands on NOAA research and other recent studies that have either supported or refuted the idea of a "global warming hiatus" by reestimating the average global temperatures during that time period with more accurate and representative data.
The global warming hiatus is a much-debated topic among climate researchers. Some scientists theorized that an unusually warm El Niño in the years 1997-1998 and an extended period afterwards without occurrence of El Nino in the tropical Pacific Ocean may have disrupted the rate of global warming.
The Earth's average global temperatures have been rising over the past century and accelerating as more human produced carbon dioxide enters and lingers in the atmosphere, which is why the idea of "global warming hiatus" seemed baffling.
But the new data set and resulting estimates show conclusively that global warming did not take a break, said Zhang.
It also highlights the importance of considering the Arctic when thinking about climate change. Until recently, Zhang said, many scientists didn't consider the Arctic big enough to greatly influence the average global temperatures. "The Arctic is remote only in terms of physical distance," he said. "In terms of science, it's close to every one of us. It's a necessary part of the equation and the answer affects us all."
Explore further:
New index shows human-induced global warming is happening faster than ever
More information:
Jianbin Huang et al, Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-017-0009-5
snoosebaum
Good Work Scotty, welcome aboard !
there was a pause ? what pause ?
BackBurner
benwelgoed
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017leetennant
Meanwhile, the world that isn't the Daily Mail and crappy bloggers were saying there was no pause all along. The "pause" is the worst example of populist science overwhelming reality I've seen since the naturalist fallacy. We know there was no pause.
This was merely a statistical artefact of the misuse of a specific dataset by deniers. Which we said right from the beginning.
The energy in the system has been increasing at a predictable rate. That doesn't change just because one dataset shows something that, on first glance, looks like it may be an anomaly.
Shootist
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017benwelgoed
snoosebaum
greenonions1
Some reading if you are interested - http://grist.org/...rifying/ Notice the ocean temperature graph. Guess Bill was right - huh?
Mark Thomas
It is the corruption of those thirsting for the tiniest slice of oil industry profits that runs so deep. If this is a politically charged topic, it is only because oil money, and the misguided who have no idea how science works, has made it so. How do you ignore the tens of billions of dollars of profit the oil companies earn? Is it such a shock the oil industry would do everything they can to try to protect their enormous profits and vast assets? They are using the same disinformation tactics with a few modern twists that the tobacco industry used for decades. They even bought themselves a political party, i.e., the Republican Party. How else can you explain the fact that Republican Party are the only ones certain global warming is not real when the it is obvious to everyone else they are wrong?
Repeat after me: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
antigoracle
Look everyone, we "finally" found the missing heat that we already presented over 60 pal-reviewed papers that contradicted and debunked each other.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017Parsec
It is so odd that you throw up an example of science working the way it is supposed to to try and discredit the latest scientific results. Of course, you do not actually have any arguments that pertain to the article, or legitimate complaints about the data or reasoning, or you would express them.
Bart_A
Ojorf
Not on here we don't, but actual scientists in this field do have a consensus.
Politics and marketing have been employed to try to obfuscate this consensus, but real, reliable data has caught up with theory and vindicated the science once again.
Only a few diehards still cling to "there is no consensus" BS.
sirdumpalot
https://en.wikipe...rrhenius 1896 buddy, 121 years ago
"Arrhenius estimated based on the CO2 levels at his time, that reducing levels by 0.62 – 0.55 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and an increase of 2.5 to 3 times of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 8–9 °C in the Arctic. In his book Worlds in the Making he described the "hot-house" theory of the atmosphere."
HeloMenelo
Lol probably the dumbest comment i've ever heard from this antigoracle sockpuppet, if denying scientific evidence like you do everyday was a science, you and your bureaucratic clowns would not need intentional actively working political campaigns spread throughout the world thumbsucking lies for the public to suck up.
HeloMenelo
antigoracle clown puppet himself showing his monkey face.... blowing lots of smoke up your pupprts ar$$ses today aren't you :D keep swinging that trees it's what you're good at ;)
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017snoosebaum
and go here ,see for yourself the crappy arctic buoy data from malfunctioning buoys
http://iabp.apl.w...ble.html
how can you correct data from faulty machine when u don't no what the fault is /
snoosebaum
lol
greenonions1
I showed you data on the warming of the oceans. If you disagree - please provide your alternate data.
PTTG
leetennant
Give me one credible example of this. Just one. 99% of climate scientists accept AGW. The other 1% have had every study completely and thoroughly debunked. Who are these whistleblowers and what do they know about basic physics that the rest of the world doesn't?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017snoosebaum
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017greenonions1
leetennant
Less glibly, this is basically a screed about the current nature of science publication generally. I know you'll be stunned, STUNNED, to know that climate scientists have the same issues with peer review as everybody else. Nobody ever argued the current system is perfect. But you're arguing against the fundamentals of the science here, not whether some new hypothesis is getting play in a particular journal today.
And, yeah, you got jack shit. Unless you want to use the bazillion words you just employed against climate science to argue for why we also can't accept the science of gravity or evolution.
snoosebaum
its ok,, u believe the bs, now u r clueless
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017greenonions1
Data - http://www.climat...eratures
Come on snoose - instead of name calling - show us your data....
aksdad
Satellite measurements:
https://www.nsstc...climate/
http://images.rem...ies.html
They only cover about 97% of the earth's surface, unlike the several thousand ground based measurements which cover a small fraction of the earth. The satellites don't reach the poles, above 85° north and south, where there are only a handful of terrestrial stations. So the terrestrial measurements are extrapolated to cover tens of thousands of square miles where there are no actual measurements, which is dubious at best. That's how these researchers did it. In fact they didn't use air temperatures, they used water temperatures and extrapolated.
It should abundantly obvious from the data that El Niño and other natural climate phenomena have far greater influence on climate than CO2 emissions.
snoosebaum
HeloMenelo
What a Maroon, numb nuts snoose lose (an antigoracle sock puppet) here have a Zero counter argument (as with every single post he made throughout the decades, firmly keeping him in the top position as an idiot stoker, (just because you think so doesn't make it so numbty, and actually tries to pin "evasive" on Greenoinins providing Evidence of how the earth heats up.
You see this is why big oil has the pathetic reputation that it has, because of goons like antigoracle being part of their circus.
HeloMenelo
No YOU stay on point, YOU are as dumb as a rock, as you don't understand science when we ask for YOU to provide us evidence of your 1000s of thumb sucked one liners then PUT it on the table, don's run away monkey, Bring your evidence ! We'll keep cracking the whip, and you'll keep jumping like a baboon ;)
HeloMenelo
It is abundantly crystal clear that you don't have the faintest idea as to how science works let alone climate change, go ask your daddy, he might know more than you can ever imagine ;)
greenonions1
snoosebaum
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017PTTG
Look at the number of cults that have predicted multiple apocalypses in a row and still have members.
The good news is that most human beings can ultimately be swayed by the facts of the matter instead of by what's convenient or comfortable to believe in. By all means provide your evidence, make your compelling arguments, but when they bounce off the thick hide of ignorance there's no shame in leaving denialists to their delusion.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017PTTG
>Types out a six-post screed.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017DirtySquirties
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017leetennant
For a start, we have three parts of a science like this. First we have the mechanism. Then we have the modelling. Then we have the observations. So why on Earth are you ranting about the process of science publication on articles about the third part of this equation? None of these issues impact climate system measurement.
Meanwhile, ironically, your rant about how social knowledge is often wrong and frequently inconsistent with scientific knowledge is EXACTLY WHAT DENIALISM IS. The fact that people believed there was "a pause" when there wasn't is exactly the kind of social-construction-of-knowledge-that-contradicts-reality that you are railing against.
So why on Earth are you using this argument against science instead of against the fossil-fuel backed campaign of disinformation that caused people to believe there was a pause in the first place?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017leetennant
So do you hang around every single science article making the same arguments. This "context" applies to everything. So I assume you're providing readers of every single article on every single science with this "context" since it's so important. By your argument, there's no consensus on anything and we should be rejecting every bit of scientific knowledge we have.
Oh, and voting Republican because of it. For some reason, that last point causes me to question your motives somewhat, Chris. But I can't wait for you to be seen questioning every other article on phys.org about every field of science. They all need "context" too, right?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017Da Schneib
And on the article, well, it's good we got more data but we knew that a decade ago. This is just the cherry on top, it's not even the whipped cream.
greenonions1
Regarding how scientists are able to arrive at a singular number to use as a reference for global average temp. - here is a pretty good primer - https://www.carbo...perature We are of course free to accept or reject what ever we want. Notice that no matter how many times one asks for your data - crickets chirping. If you ask a geologist how old the earth is - he/she will probably tell you about 4.54 billion years. One is of course free to accept or reject that #. Point is - it is what scientists do - and deniers say "that can't be right - I read it on the back of a corn flake packet"
Captain Stumpy
1- you can always find someone who has a complaint about certain aspects of any method
2- the overall statistics show that peer review is amazingly effective (especially on any topic that is not medical or soft science)
3- the scientific method is the most effective means to disprove a belief, like the debunking of the eu
you don't like peer review because it won't allow you to publish your blatant pseudoscience
you don't like the scientific method because it provides evidence that your pseudoscience is wrong
attacking it with random opinions is going to be as effective as bringing a pillow to a sword duel and hoping you can smother your victim from 30 paces
using gish-gallop to support your argument is no different
Captain Stumpy
every actual scientist that I've ever known is very aware of the critiques of modern science as it is on this foundation that modern science is built
it is the reason that modern science requires evidence, falsifiability, testing and validation rather than just accepting comments on faith, like your eu cult dogma
.
the one thing that you have yet to produce is any viable alternative
and to piggy-back on that: you also have produced absolutely no quantifiable or scientific examinations
this is the biggie!
you give plenty of opinion and belief, yet you have absolutely no quantifiable methodical assessment of science
if you want to change how science is done, you must first examine the system without bias while producing a means to predict and test
IOW - ya got nothing
epic gish-gallop fail
SamB
Contempt is the weapon of the weak and a defense against one's own despised and unwanted feelings.
snoosebaum
''To get a complete picture of Earth's temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.
The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is 'normal' for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an 'anomalies' and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.
A 'positive' anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a 'negative' anomaly means it's cooler.
Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.''
lol ! sounds like instructins on how to get any result u want
greenonions1
Of course - every meteorological association in the world may be in on the grand conspiracy - and falsifying all of their records too. Tin foil hats anyone?
leetennant
Sounds reasonable
30yrs is the time period needed to determine climate so this makes sense too
You're trying to assess how current conditions compare to the climatic average for a region. This is the way you'd do it.
This is called 'statistics'. You want to see how one mean compares to another mean.
In what way?
snoosebaum
On a separate tact ,i would prefer to see the raw data plotted for each location then count the number that are rising . Wattsup'' has a them for US locations and they are flat
And ,i guess you get to choose your ' normal '
sirdumpalot
snoosebaum
Da Schneib
#climatetroll identified and ignored. DNFTT.
greenonions1
snoosebaum
''The link I gave you gives you a very quick overview of the process of processing millions and millions of data points - and then mathematically establishing a reference point.''
thus arriving at a single number , like a glass of water
yes, i used it as an analogy [ glad u got that ] but then i saw it was how science treats the problem
leetennant
It's more like round in circles as far as I can tell. You claim scientists are treating climate like a simple closed system. Then you use the simple closed system to show they're "wrong" on account of the attributes of the simple closed system you say they shouldn't be using in the first place.
But since nobody but you ever brought up the "glass of water" then this is not an analogy that works - either for the science or for your critique. So let's put it to bed ok?
Da Schneib
On Earth,
Real science doesn't count on one number. That's the way they have to explain it to stupids like you.
Because #climatecrankscantcount.
snoosebaum
sure thats not .11798 ?
greenonions1
snoosebaum
Captain Stumpy
your making an ASSumption that you can't take a statistical average from a series of precision measurements and get a global average, which is idiotic
you do realise that is how your local average temp is taken, right? it's a statistical average of a series or measurements in the whole area averaged over time try reading the study
it is usually listed under methods etc
crying foul when you refuse to actually get the information is like saying the football players don't exist because you've never seen their contracts to play for a team
IOW - you're making an argument from ignorance because you refuse to accept, or even access, the data
epic stupidity on your part, eh?
snoosebaum
and this article is paywalled
Captain Stumpy
measurements are never about belief or faith except you're wrong: we have "seen" the rise because it's been measured
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
this is like measurement of CO2 levels: you, personally, can't "see" it but it's been repeatedly measured for decades, regardless of your argument against or about it and your point is?
that actually makes your comments about it all the worse because you're refusing to actually read the contents while making comments about the contents!
that is often called stupidity - just sayin'
snoosebaum
Captain Stumpy
2- the study has not actually refuted any modern data that has been published in science journals, so I don't have a need to purchase the study
3- there are other ways to invalidate your claims as you have repeatedly refused to actually read the science, preferring instead to get your opinion handed to you from some political rhetoric site
4- there is nothing I've stated above that is proven to be false
IOW - until you actually pull your head out you've no leg to stand on for an argument
PS - you can see "sea level rise" listed in various studies, just like you can see the global temperatures as well
they're freely available in various places
choosing to ignore the data becuase you've a politlcal opinion is like chooseing to play russian roulette with a 1911 automatic becuase your senator says it's safe
greenonions1
mackita
Da Schneib
#climatecranks lie whenever they think they won't get caught.
Captain Stumpy
it is pseudoscience like yours that makes definitive comments without validation
2- just because a study is published doesn't mean it's validated. there is a difference
this is hard for you to understand being acclimated to pseudoscience over science
of course, this is also why idiots claiming that science doesn't allow controversy or some such stupidity are so wrong in their assessment
3- there are different levels of evidence
most important: #2
just because it's a published study doesn't mean it's debunking anything - lots of science is skeptical against the mainstream (see any published study of MOND)
it ain't debunking climate science unless it's validated
there is plenty of validated science in climate science you're ignoring
IOW - epic red-herring & opinion fail
mackita
Captain Stumpy
but this ain't about your religious beliefs, it's about what is proven to be false
spreading misinformation and blatantly false information is dangerous as it promotes stupidity as a goal rather than critical thinking skills: there is a good reason to debunk people like you posting pseudoscience
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
if you were capable of presenting a scientifically valid argument debunking climate change or AGW you would be collecting a nobel and your excessive funding from the koch bro's and their idiot political supporters
to date the best argument you have is to distract from reality or attempt to cast suspicion on validated science using misinformation and your lack of literacy skills
neither are a match for science
snoosebaum
onions , thanks for the considered response ,
interesting here , https://wattsupwi...a-level/ , shows rise starting in 1850 's consistant with a report about our local glaciers starting to melt about that time .
google censored some photos i saw showing no rise effects , , left wing extremism in the universites is not helping the discussion ,nor is the long history of govenrment deception and crime , this is WAY ! off topic i know but it was just revealed @ Bill Still that re jfk murder Jack ruby knew Oswald prior and also pror knowledge of the event. This does not foster my trust in authority , everyday i see the reach of Bilderberg gangsters. Yes, this has nothing to do perhaps with well meaning scientists but its the context in which we live.
Da Schneib
Maggnus
Excellent example of Godwin's Law, reductio ad Hitlerum.
Da Schneib
snoosebaum
http://climate.we...ar=2004#
Da Schneib
The real multivalued multidimensional data you don't have the math or intelligence to understand because you're a stupid and a #climatecrank.
One really does have to wonder if you can actually be that stupid or if you're another #russianprovocateur.
snoosebaum
https://www.faceb...atherRu/
greenonions1
snoosebaum
howhot3
Lets not forget that climate change deniers CHOOSE to be that way. Enjoy you unhappy unscience life denier goonies and you know who you are.
TrollBane
For those new here, if you are signed in, hover over a quote from one of the denialists to show links that allow you to Ignore, Quote or Report. You can ignore all posts from the commenter.