Since ~1998 the rate of "Global Warming" has decreased. The peak rate of warming was the period from 1976 to 1998 which just happens to correlate with new and improved methods of measuring "Global Warming" and combining, as in "reanalyzing" the data to reduce "uncertainty". By creatively manipulating the data we have determined that we now have data with "almost unbelievable accuracy".
For some odd reason, "almost unbelievable" just doesn't have the same grab that it once had when your parents warned you that if something sounded too good to be true it probably was too good to be true. Convincing people that the "new and improved" methods may not be all they are cracked up to be is not all that easy.
Since the rate of "Global Warming" decreased, "Global Ocean Heat Content" has replaced "Global Mean Surface Temperature" as the go to metric for inspiring urgent action to save the world from the Great and Power Carbon Monster. Kevin Trenberth and company have even produced a new and improved "Reanalyzation" of the "Globe Ocean Heat Content" to stoke the fires of "mitigation now".
The OHC has been reanalyzed so well, that a recent paper comparing paleoclimate proxy derived Pacific OHC indicates that warming in that region since the start of deeper ocean data collection has been10 times (the press release for the paper said 15 times which requires some creative rounding) faster than any other period during the past 10,000 years. That would be "almost unbelievable".
What's a guy to do? Trusted Climate Scientists are saying we are all going to fry.
Let's look at some of the other data. Since the OHC data is in ocean basins both as vertical temperature anomaly and the OHC in Joules times 10^22, I need to separate the ocean surface temperature into the same or at least similar basins. If I did that right, above are the SST anomalies for the southern oceans from latitude 60S to the equator. Notice how the South Pacific has risen 0.4C since 1870 and appears to have a decreasing slope as it approaches present. The Pacific Ocean is the largest so it would tend to have less impact from internal "natural" or otherwise variability.
Prior to the more "activist" Climate Science, there was a period formerly known as the "Little Ice Age" (LIA) where "Global" temperatures where thought to be lower than today due to a variety of "natural" possible influences like volcanic activity and solar variation. Since the more "activist" Climate Science the fka LIA and preceding "warm periods" have been renamed as anomalies and could have virtually zero impact on modern climate because the "physics" of "Global Warming" indicates that "only" CO2 and the Great and Powerful Carbon could possibly have caused so much "rapid" climate change, 0.15 C to 0.65 C, over the past 60 odd years. They are right. Once you remove all other possibilities, that much warming, the high end at least, is "almost unbelievable".
With every data set indicating less than "unprecedented" warming, one has to wonder why the sudden focus on a botched data set. Normally, someone trying to double check their work would compare as many data sets as possible to avoid an embarrassing error. Could it be they "liked" the results so much they were willing to risk embarrassment? Then perhaps "Shame" is too 20th Century.
Data Sources: KNMI Climate Explore and NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center