... so I'm putting it here too:
The global average temperature in 2018, based on global data from UAH weather satellites, was about the same as it was in 2002 -- no statistically significant difference.
Between 2002 and 2018, there was a huge EL Nino heat release from the Pacific Ocean, not yet offset by La Ninas.
That large heat release was local, temporary and unrelated to CO2 ... but it raised the global average temperature in 2015 and 2016.
A linear temperature trend line from 2002 through 2018 WOULD show a rising trend, but that rise was mainly due to the late 2015 / early 2016 El Nino, not CO2.
.
.
.
"Warmest years on record"
is a near meaningless statement
-- you don't understand why,
but I will explain:
is a near meaningless statement
-- you don't understand why,
but I will explain:
(1)
Real time global average temperature compilations started in 1880, a few decades after a warming trend started.
For now, let's ignore the fact that there were very few Southern Hemisphere measurements in the data before World War II.
(2)
Based on Vostok, Antarctica ice core studies, our planet has mild temperature cycles lasting hundreds of years.
(3)
A warming period that started in roughly 1700 is part of a warming / cooling cycle -- there is no evidence that any past warming cycle was not later reversed by a cooling cycle.
(4)
As a result of global average compilations starting in 1880, DURING a warmingh trend, it is EXPECTED that there will be many "warmest years on record", until that warming cycle ends, and the following cooling cycle begins.
Therefore, the claim of a "warmest year on record",
made DURING a warming trend, which is the ONLY trend on record, is almost meaningless.
made DURING a warming trend, which is the ONLY trend on record, is almost meaningless.
.
.
.
A more accurate picture is to observe what has actually happened since 1940,
78 years ago, when humans began adding a lot of CO2 to the air, after the Great Depression ended.
Through the end of 2018, the global average temperature was up only +0.6 degrees C., equivalent to global warming of less than 0.8 degrees C. in a century,
which is a harmless rate of warming.
which is a harmless rate of warming.
There is no logical reason to assume the next 78 years will have more warming than the past 78 years.
( and that's based on a worst case estimate that CO2 caused ALL of the warming in the past 78 years -- the UN's IPCC actually guesses humans caused "over half" of the warming since 1950, not all of the warming since 1940 ).
Meanwhile, the average climate model (excluding one apparently accurate, perhaps by accident, Russian model) predicts a future warming rate from CO2 that is quadruple the actual rate of warming in the past 78 years.
In my opinion, and I have been reading climate science articles and studies as a hobby since 1997, predictions of a much higher rate future global warming are science fraud.
In the past 30+ years, the climate models have proven to be nothing more than computer games, because they make consistently wrong climate predictions.
They are generally based on a CO2 theory from the 1970s, that is obviously wrong, but is never changed !
In real science, wrong predictions falsify a theory, and any model based on that theory.
In government-financed climate modeling, it appears that wrong predictions don't matter, but when wrong predictions don't matter, that's junk science, not real science!