Actually, since May of 1995 the troposphere has warmed by .31 degrees according to the satellite record; that is a rate of .15 degrees per decade or a little more than the rate for the entire satellite record (e.g. since 1978). Your belief that warming has "stagnated" since 1995 is simply misinformed.

There are ups and downs within a trend, largely due to ocean patterns. You can pick a year and get different results. Start from 2003 and the troposphere has been warming at a rate of 0.23 degrees per decade. Start from 2008 and warming has been at 0.33 degrees per decade. Start from 1998 and the troposphere has cooled.

The way to view trends is to average out the highs and lows and look at what is happening in the longer term. (Statistically, the linear rate is calculated by the method of "least squares"; it is the line that best fits the trend.) The high temperatures of 1998 were due to an extreme El Nino on top of the ongoing rate of warming. The low of 2008 was due to a La Nina pattern. The ongoing linear rate can be hidden by those variances.

Look at the longer period. In the satellite record, tropospheric warming has been at a linear rate of 0.14 degrees per decade. Also keep in mind that 90% of global warming is going into the oceans. For that we can watch sea level which is rising due to melting land ice and thermal expansion.

Satellite measurements of troposphere temperature anomalies:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/u...

Sea level rise

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The data show it has in fact warmed, but more slowly. The data do not capture what might be happening in the deep ocean.

The models did not try to show the cycles of 10 years or so which are probably due to the oceans. Scientists don't know enough about them.

.

Global warming is a long term trend, not a monotonic increase, and the concern is not the tiny slow increase in global temps, it is all the secondary effects on weather, on ocean acidity, on weather patterns, on ice caps, on ecosystems, etc. Tens of thousands of scientists have massively studied the sorts of skepticism you are expressing for a century and the verdict has been in for decades. Many important details are unclear or in dispute amongst scientists. The basic conclusions that AGW is real, serious, extremely long-lasting, and mostly quite negative for the human economy are not. There is a massive fossil fuel industry serving campaign to lie about this, but the lies have to constantly shift and contradict themselves, because reality keeps exposing them.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...

Imagine you have a mercury thermometer in a kettle. You flick the switch. You take the reading in degrees C and you get:

20, 20, 20, 20, 20

and then you stop. And you declare the kettle isn't working. Actually, if you'd bothered to keep taking the results you'd have see that the temperature did rise. This is the problem with taking too few measurements. 20 years sounds like a long time, but that's in relation to more than 150 years of data.

Now, let's imagine you had a digital thermometer that takes a reading every second. At some point, as the kettle is heating up, you take a few readings. You get:

50.2, 50.3, 50.3, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3

is the temperature rising or falling or staying the same? Well, the problem is that your sensor is only accurate to 0.1 degrees. So you really can't say anything other than the temperature, when you took the reading, was about 50.2 degrees +/- 0.1 degree. In order for you to see the warming trend of the kettle, you need to wait for long enough that the actual temperature rises more than the sensitivity of your measurement. And that's the problem with drawing a conclusion on a small data set - the rise in global temperature is very small over a long period of time (about 0.13 degrees per decade). So, each year we get an average 'global' temperature which will contain a certain error due to the uncertainty in the measurement systems. There will also be yearly variations in temperature. So in order for you to see the warming trend, you have to wait until that trend causes a rise that becomes large enough to observe from the background variation.

The models have failed, primarily because they assume a feedback. They basically decide what the answer will be before they run the model. If they want the model to show warming of 1 degree, they will adjust some parameters and the result will show one degree. If they want to show six degrees, they will do some other adjustments.

Now, the IPCC decided to try and trick you and claim that the models can be trusted because a few models are within range, the ones that predicted less warming. However, the IPCC did not then say this means we can expect less warming. Instead they said ALL of the models are validated, therefore we can still use the average of ALL of the models as a best guess of what will happen, even though this average is mostly made up of models that have failed.

So you are correct, we can expect less warming from CO2 than the alarmists have predicted. They might still be right, but based on what we have seen, we should probably adjust expectations downwards.

The Earth has carried on warming. Using the Cowtan & Way global temperature dataset, the trend since 1995 is +0.140 C per decade with a confidence range of plus or minus 0.116 C per decade. The trend is definitely warming. If you cherry-pick your start date to be 1998, during one of the strongest El Ninos on record then you can find a trend of +0.109 C per decade, but it's not significant because the uncertainty in calculating a trend is bigger if you have less data.

We can use the statistics to estimate the chances that 'global warming has stopped' or 'global warming has accelerated', or something in between. There is a 24% chance that warming has accelerated, and a 6% chance that it has stopped:

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers...

This has been spun by bloggers and the media into saying that warming has stopped.

Statistics alone can't tell you everything, you need to look at the physics of what's going on too. At the same time, the amount of heat in the oceans has been increasing at a rate of about 4 Hiroshima nukes per second.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON...

It turns out that there have recently been some natural changes in wind patterns over the Pacific that have encouraged La Nina conditions, where heat is absorbed from the atmosphere into the oceans. Once these changes are considered, climate models accurately report temperature changes. One of the key studies on this was done by Kosaka and Xie:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-...

And another by Matthew England and colleagues:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-...

People have calculated what these changes mean for global warming. The key figure is how much warming you get when you double CO2 in the atmosphere, and the 'consensus' figure is 'somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C, most likely around 3 C'.

If you include the recent temperature changes, and we continue to get lots of La Ninas, then the best estimate moves down to 2-2.5 C. But if this series of La Ninas has been a freak event, then it explains the differences between the average climate model and the temperature changes we've seen and global warming will speed up again soon.

summer is very hot

Don't worry. The skepticism has made the changes non-reversible. The melting of South Pole has been accelerated; there is no way to reverse the process.

Those reports by IPCC and the White House have been too optimistic.

http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/download...

Luke 17:33 Whosoever will seek to save his soul, shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose it, shall get it life.

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

You can't trust a computer model, period. No man or group of men, for that matter, have enough understanding of the atmosphere to accurately project what the Earth's environment will do. James Hansen, once leader of environmental scientist and now a communist activist, used to program for H.H. Lamb who predicted an Ice Age. All the programs pointed to an imminent Ice Age back in the 70s. With just a flip of the wrist James' program started to pump out the crises of Global Warming. See how easy it is done?

A prominent climate scientist John Barnes bemoans this very fact : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.

So your question is valid. Think about this for a moment. Get all the greatest programmers in the world and have them project the amount in my bank account for ten years. They can't do it because there are just too many variables that they can't account for. And my bank account is dramatically less complicated than the weather and the climate.

Watch C's video.

Tell ya what, I'll ignore any year you'd like and you ignore 1998.

Then what kind of trend do you see?

I'll even ignore 2-3-4 years, and you skip 1998.

What's the trend.

One would hope that you're smart enough to know that the 1998 el nino made it a hot year.

To think that it was in any way at all a valid data point in determining climate trends is wrong.

Not a mistake kind of wrong.

A lie kind of wrong.

So, contrary to your assertion, if you use 1998, then you're an AGW denier.

I'm not a climate change "denier" before you go jumping down my throat I believe climate change is real and humans are contributing but there are some unanswered questions. Why hasn't the Earth warmed in 20 years? Around 1995 global temps sort of stagnated. Climate models predicted .3 degrees Celsius increases and what we've seen is .01-.05 degree changes. If climate models don't reflect real world trends how can they be trusted at all

Hey there, I've posted here a few times and I think the main problem is with the term "global warming", it sort of makes things sound like they just get warmer steadily as time goes on, when really it's a much larger and more complicated picture than that.

The situation regarding climate change is best described as an increasing amount of "energy" trapped within the atmosphere, and this energy causes several negative affects. Weather becomes more erratic first, causing polar vortexes, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc etc. Temperatures flux more, even into colder temperatures, not always warmer.

As weather gets more erratic and energy continues to build and build, the average temperature of the entire planet over longer periods of time will indeed be warmer, so it technically is "global warming", but the entire situation causes cold fluctuations and warm fluctuations as well as many more types of climate related variables to take place.

Also, the last ten years have definitely been warmer and also home to some pretty unfortunate erratic weather. These two things together have been detrimental to some keystone aspects of ecosystems across the globe, and as those are affected and eventually break down the effect of "global warming" will increase and the effects more noticeable.

Well the no warming thing is complete denier bullsh*t AGW has not stopped in 85 or any year since Surface temps has slowed warming to a crawl but it has still been warming minimally all this time. Much of the warming has been going into the oceans but it is the combo of surface and ocean temps that make up GW