Now that winter is drawing near (northern hemisphere), I see the global warming chatter has died down (right on cue).

The dude abides wrote:You're attacking the source and not the data. There are plenty of other soures presenting the same data.

Mortician wrote:

So to summarize, if temps are above normal, it's global warming. If they are below normal, it's global warming. I think I get it now.

You got it...also, dude, global warming is not the preferred nomenclature. Climate change, please.

I think "climate change" isn't scary enough. Perhaps it's time to develop a new term to incite more fear?

Mortician wrote:

There's a lot of crap on both sides of the issue (which is usually the case).

My favorite was when we had a colder than normal winter a few years ago and people were saying this is exactly what you should expect with global warming, as well as cooler than normal summers.

The problem is nobody ever said that was a symptom of global warming until it actually happened.

So to summarize, if temps are above normal, it's global warming. If they are below normal, it's global warming. I think I get it now.

Hey, I loved your post. Start off by posing as a neutral bystander talking about "crap on both sides" then shift over to your real crazy-ignorant one-sided perspective hoping you will have gained credibility with your opening.

Awesome technique!

{two thumbs way up!}

not my real name wrote:

Can you point to the original source of that graph? It's not cited in the news article. I'd like to see the original context for that graph before drawing conclusions one way or another. Thanks

The original data is online here:

The plot looks to be a fair representation of the global (NH+SH)/2 monthly data. There are a few obvious flaws, the first data point they show looks to be October 1997 spanning 15 years, so the x-axis label is wrong as is the headline and the lead in paragraph. It's also a stretch to state the previous warming trend spanned only the period 1980-1996. Still, it is fair to say that the data doesn't show a clear increase in global mean surface temperature for the last decade or so.

The principle cause of this plateau seems to be that ocean temperatures are rising at much greater depths than expected, though historic data on this is pretty sparse. In other words the globe is still warming, but not so much in the air 6 feet off the surface. In the sense that modeling of ocean and ocean currents is far from perfect one could say that the "climate models are deeply flawed". That does not equate to AGW isn't happening. It does mean that our ability to forecast the effects is still pretty coarse.

Thanks for that link, a wealth of information there!

I see a couple of interesting things in the available graphs linked at that site.

First, I'm surprised to see that mean global temperatures have been relatively constant over the past 15 years. I understood the past few years to have been among the hottest ever, which does not seem to be the case.

Second, we can pick off a few different cyclical patterns at different time scales. Obviously there are monthly fluctuations. When we look at the annually smoothed data we see some interesting multi-year patterns. But when we look at the decadally smoothed data we see some longer term patterns. Notably, we see a peak about every 60 years, give or take, followedby about 25-30 years of gradual decline, then followed by 30-35 years of gradual increase.

This ~ 60 yea cycle would lead us to have expected a peak around 15-20 years ago. The current (past 15 year) flattening is consistent with that expected peak.

I'm not sure these dta either "prove" or "disprove" anything in particular, but they sure are interesting! Thanks for sharing

yamaha wrote:

As is usually the case.

So the earth is just going to stop tilting (Which is the reason of the seasons just incase you didnt' know)just because it is overall heating up by a fraction of a degree? Nice thinking: Global un-tilting.

Raaaa wrote:

I think "climate change" isn't scary enough. Perhaps it's time to develop a new term to incite more fear?

They don't just want fear, they want "investments," or payments to their businesses or those who kick back some of it to their campaigns. Almost all money collected to fight "climate change" is pure profit, as you can bill almost an infinite number of dollars as a consultant working on "the biggest problem facing humanity," and don't need to show results, because it's "such a big problem." They also gratuitously and doggedly try to insult the intelligence of anyone who accuses them of fighting a battle against an imaginary evil.

To those claiming that the warming has plateaued in recent years: Does a set of stairs have plateaus during the ascent?

stair steps wrote:

To those claiming that the warming has plateaued in recent years: Does a set of stairs have plateaus during the ascent?

Whoah, that's deep, man! Truly convincing argument.

When you walk/climb from the continental US' lowest point (Death Valley) to its highest point (Mt. Whitney) do you spend part of that time walking on level ground? Even going downhill?

Whoah, this is really deep. Just blows my mind, man!

Yes, yes I believe you are right! Astounding!

stair steps wrote:

To those claiming that the warming has plateaued in recent years: Does a set of stairs have plateaus during the ascent?

That is provocative! And can you go up and down stairs, too??? This is truly groundbreaking stuff.

Zoo Keeper wrote:

stair steps wrote:

To those claiming that the warming has plateaued in recent years: Does a set of stairs have plateaus during the ascent?

That is provocative! And can you go up and down stairs, too??? This is truly groundbreaking stuff.

Ah, you see, the down the stairs part is where the unfortunate reality of trends for the past 120 years come into play.

I choose to use a graph with reasonable axes:

I couldn't have said it better.

stair steps wrote:

Ah, you see, the down the stairs part is where the unfortunate reality of trends for the past 120 years come into play.

I choose to use a graph with reasonable axes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif

Since your stairs start in 1880 should we assume the temperature of the earth was constant for all of time up to that point? Or is the 1880 start just as arbitrary as starting at any other date?

I believe 1880 is the start point of reliably recorded temperature data. You can speculate beyond that using ice cores and models, but it's not a physical measurement.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Since your stairs start in 1880 should we assume the temperature of the earth was constant for all of time up to that point? Or is the 1880 start just as arbitrary as starting at any other date?

Please stay out of this. You haven't mastered basic arithmetic, to be sure, and so you can't be expected to interpret even the most basic of graphs. Thanks!

The data that "the dude abides" (and I would sooner trust a stoner like Lebowski than this guy) indirectly refers to has been manipulated and massaged in such a way as to make it appear credible to the scientifically illiterate deniers who already don't think AGW could possibly be a real phenomenon.

Here is just one of many sources of objective data, collected not by some dickface with an agenda but by a real scientific agency:

(NASA).svg

And looky here!

Before you start yelling about Wikipedia being an unreliable source, recognize that the figures come from the National Climate Data Center, not from the backyard thermometer of Uncle Cletus down in Tuscaloosa.

Warming is occurring. You can deny that it has to do with human activity if you like, but to deny the data itself requires the kind of stupidity than even Letsrun doesn't often boast. Well, not all that often. Thanks!

stair steps wrote:

I believe 1880 is the start point of reliably recorded temperature data. You can speculate beyond that using ice cores and models, but it's not a physical measurement.

It's still an arbitrary date. You're right about the computer models, they aren't real measurements, but the ice core data is. So what do the ice cores say the temperature was prior to 1880?

Pediatric gynecologist wrote:

Warming is occurring. You can deny that it has to do with human activity if you like, but to deny the data itself requires the kind of stupidity than even Letsrun doesn't often boast. Well, not all that often. Thanks!

Where did I say warming isn't occurring? And what does basic math have to do with the arbitrariness of when you choose to start your data?

Since you're so fond of graphs from Wikipedia here's one for you. It's a compendium of temperature studies for the last 2,000 years. Unless you're too blinded by your (angry liberal) bias, you might notice that the current warming began roughly 300 years ago. The earth has been warming for several centuries, after cooling for several centuries, and it started long before man could possibly have been to blame:

If you feel that 2,000 years ago is just as arbitrary as 1880, then here's a graph of temperatures that begins 400,000 years ago. You might notice that the global temperature goes up and down. It's never stable. Huh, how'd that happen without people doing it?: