This is from Nature Climate Change "Recently amplified global warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend" November 20, 2017. Buoys were used to measure Arctic surface air temperature. I can't
find any evidence that any global temperature data sets have been revised because of this study. I don't know if this evidence is convincing to the relevant scientific organizaions and I found no mention of it at
realclimate.org or at the NOAA site. Zhang, one of the authors stated, "we estimate a new rate of Arctic warming of 0.659 degrees C/decade from 1998-2014.
The existence and magnitude of the recently suggested global warming hiatus, or slowdown, have been strongly debated1,2,3. Although various physical processes4,5,6,7,8 have been examined to elucidate this phenomenon, the accuracy and completeness of observational data that comprise global average surface air temperature (SAT) datasets is a concern9,10. In particular, these datasets lack either complete geographic coverage or in situ observations over the Arctic, owing to the sparse observational network in this area9. As a consequence, the contribution of Arctic warming to global SAT changes may have been underestimated, leading to an uncertainty in the hiatus debate. Here, we constructed a new Arctic SAT dataset using the most recently updated global SATs2 and a drifting buoys based Arctic SAT dataset11 through employing the ‘data interpolating empirical orthogonal functions’ method12. Our estimate of global SAT rate of increase is around 0.112 °C per decade, instead of 0.05 °C per decade from IPCC AR51, for 1998–2012. Analysis of this dataset shows that the amplified Arctic warming over the past decade has significantly contributed to a continual global warming trend, rather than a hiatus or slowdown.
No one has refuted the OP or the explanation and evidence I've provided to support it. You all alarmists are just trotting out your pet argument about climate change. Oh, well.
And while we're off-topic yet again--I am not the topic--let me ask you, Mike, what are you skeptical about pertaining climate models?
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I don't know where "in the real world" is. The climate includes all of the oceans at all depths plus the land surface, atmosphere and cryosphere. The oceans are storing 92% of the excess heat as a result of the planets energy imbalance so the average person living in the continental U.S. may not notice any changes. By the time the ordinary U.S. citizens notices a significant temperature change it will be too late to do anything about the problem because the energy stored in the oceans will keep the plant warm for centuries and lead to catastrophic warming.
It's funny when people use data generated fron a computer model to refute the fact that the only place global warming is occurring is in computer models.
I am not knowledgeable enough about climate models to say what I am skeptical of. I would have to be a climate scientist specializing in that subject or someone who had read at least 1 textbook on the
subject with additional studying before I could know enough to be able to contribute anything. Today's models are getting increasingly complex and hardly resemble the crude models of the 1980's.
The recent models have been reasonably accurate for both regional and global mean projections. Modelling of clouds is often given as the biggest problem with climate models but I don't know if that
is true. I doubt the ability of models to predict changes in ocean circulation.
Chris (08-28-2019)