Why do deniers perpetuate the lie that It hasn't warmed since 1998?

NCDC and NASA say that 2005 was the hottest globally. 2010 will probably pip it.

HadCRUT3 says that 1998 was hotter and that record looks safe until the next El Nino.

Both satellite records: UAH and RSS say that 1998 was the hottest the atmosphere has been, although 2010 is now statistically indistinguishable from 1998 in UAH.

Satellites don't sample the poles, and HadCRUT3 misses out a lot of the poles too. Meanwhile measurements suggest that the Arctic (and parts ot he Antarctic Peninsula) are the fastest warming places on Earth, so maybe NASA is more accurate (since it includes this area) and maybe 2005/2010 were the hottest surface temperatures on record.

We can't unambiguously say that 1998 wasn't the warmest the lower atmosphere has been on record - it might have been, or maybe 2005 or 2010 are.

However, that ignores the total amount of heat in Earth, most of which is in the oceans and since 1998 we have sunk a huge amount of heat into the oceans. The total energy on Earth is higher than 1998; we just had a spectacular el nino in '97 '98 that dumped heat from the oceans into the atmosphere...

First, you are assuming it is a lie, when in truth it is simply not specific enough. 2005 was the warmest year for a few of the groups that measure global temps whereas it was not for others, thus by your stance on lying, you have just lied. Further, Hansen even admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years. I would therefore suggest that saying there has been no warming in the past 15 years, is no more lying than your statements. Perhaps it is not a specific as you would like and perhaps they did not use the GISS data as you would like, but you are neither being specific about your accusation nor do you really have any reason to expect that the GISS , or whatever you use should be used by all.

Jeff M,

You say 0.7 in the last 100 years. So do you support the more than 4 degrees in the next 50 being suggested? That certainly is taking the changes from long term to short term.

Furhter, Around 2000, the warmers did not go around stating that 1998 was the hottest year because of El Nino, did they?

Also you remarkable in the same post neglect to mention that 2005 and 2010 were big El Nino years, which actually made me giggle, so thanks for the laugh.

MTR,

No sir, You do not get to make some claim about the amount of energy we have sunk into the ocean. None of the models use the ocean as a heat sink. Therefore they entirely ignore the inherent negative feedback created by the ocean serving as a heat sink. The oceans are very massive and able to hold a very large amount of energy. So large in fact, that the atmosphere's ability to hold energy seems like a drop in the bucket. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You think it is alright to refer to the ocean as a heat sink and not account for it as a heat sink? This is what I am talking about psuedo-science. You want to assume something, you should at least hold that assumption throughout. Your science is riddled with this type of silly logic. You assume that all of the correlation between temps and CO2 from paleoclimate records was solely CO2 causing warming, then you come to your models and talk about the feedback of warmer temps adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This logical inconsistency and your refusal to even acknowledge and correct for such inconsistencies, makes it difficult for me to accept anything said by these "scientists".

Also, when talking about the clear changes seen in global temps, lets really be honest. They are seen by taking the weighted average of averages and taking the running average over 15 months of this. In other words, the noise is very very large and the "signal" of AGW is very very small. Pretenses of certainty in modeling over 100 years in such a case is absolutely absurd. To assume an exponential growth rate, and then pretend that the relatively short period of time of 40 years can in way support this exponential growth rate is just a travesty of science. Seriously people get your head out of your orifice.

What lie? 1998 is still the warmest on record. 2005 from what I understand is close and another El Nino year. 2010 may top 1998 as the warmest and for a good portion of it was another El Nino year. If you look back over time, the past warmest years tend to be El Nino years where the Earth naturally warms up. Which points out that nature may have a bigger role then what the AGW crowd wants to admit.

1998 is the warmest year on record in the HADcrut3 (RSS/UAH) dataset while 2005 is the warmest on record in the NCDC and GISS datasets.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

People who state this, however, seem unwilling to learn the cause of the heatwave in 1998, that being the intense El Nino.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/M...

However there is more global coverage with the GISS dataset as opposed to the other datasets, particularly at the poles where it's warming the fastest.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sto...

Seebob: Temperature does not rise right along with CO2 because there is background noise, which the warmth of 1998 is attributed to, known as oscillations. Things such as air pressure changes, ocean current changes, heat being redistributed, and so on.

Edit 2: No I'm not saying CO2 has a minor effect in temperature rise. What I am saying is global temperature has risen by roughly 0.7C in the last century mainly due to an increase in greenhouse gases. Temperature variations due to noise from oscillations increase and decrease the temperature more than the effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. However even with this noise the effects of that CO2 are still felt and the trend is still positive.

If you want to look at short term variations, such as you are doing now, CO2 does not play a big role. If you want to look at global temperature trends CO2 plays a large role. I'm sure you've seen time and time again in these forums from both sides that short term variation is due to weather while long term trends are due to climate.

Expel: Not once have I ever went into detail about how much possible future warming will bring as I'm not the one who runs or writes the computer programs that show how much the warming will be. However, I am more likely to side with scientists, who suggest the most likely amount of temp rise in the next century will be approximately 3C, as opposed to random anti-science people on the internet.

There have been many strong El Nino years in the past as well as many strong La Nina years. The El Nino of 2009/2010 is nowhere near as strong as that of 1998. The MEI value for the El Nino of 1997/1998 peaked at 2.887 while that of that of 2009/2010 peaked at 1.502.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/M...

Well, it's all in how you interpret graphs...and has it in fact warmed since 1998?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

Here is how I interpret the graph, used extensively by the AGW adherents.

It clearly shows 1998 as the hottest year to that date.

But what has happened since then...there is only one year hotter than 1998, it appears to be 2005.

So really. in the last 12 years, temperatures have stabilised or mostly fallen, except for that one year.

Surely, if CO2 atmospheric concentrations increase each year, would you not expect temperatures to rise each year as well?

This is not the case, can you answer why?

Probably 2010 > 2005 > 1998

But more to the point is the rolling average, which is clearly increasing

BTW, why do some denialist say denialists generally admit that warming is real, when, as you can see right here, that is just not true?

That is only in NASA's GISS data set. The rest still show 1998 the warmest year on record.

Actually, it hasn't statistically warmed since 1995 says warmist hoaxer Phil Jones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...

The only reason I can think of for people to want to believe that global warming is a myth is to promote industrial development further, sell more fossil fuels, encourage more mining. Bottom line is cash, baby. Good old cold cash.

Don't forget that 2010 is on track to be the hottest, last time I checked. They don't want to take responsibility for our actions. They don't care about our environment.

Edit: Stop copying and pasting my answer to the kid below