“Climate Change ended in 1998, and there is no longer anything to worry about!”
This claim, expressed in the article Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months, was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherry picking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.” What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.” That’s one of the cherry-picking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.” Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:
(Graphic courtesy of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science. Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written; “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.” He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.” This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:
Land, atmosphere and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). (Graphic courtesy Nuccitelli Institute, 2012)
In conclusion, the myth that Climate Change ceased to exist after 1998 is a misconception that is based on generalized and unspecific data being released by unqualified, so called, “climate experts,” such as “Sir” Monkton, as well as a few mistaken calculations that led to inaccurate conclusions from respected climatologists. Unfortunately this climate change conjecture stating Climate Change ended in 1998, was a perfect way for politicians and citizens alike, floundering in their claim that climate change isn’t an immediate problem, to finally grasp scientific “evidence,” backing their argument, despite the information being broadcasted before it could be reviewed.
Citations
graphic 1: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
graphic 2: http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html