Quote:

---

joker_man said:
This is a very good point. However, the way I interpreted the article, is that "global temperature" is an abstract concept. In the scientific community, abstract concepts need to be dealt with very carefully, but they aren't necessarily invalid. And the way I think "global temperature" needs to be dealt with is by looking at the trend over many years rather than just a few.

---

Quote:

---

And if you really want to look at data from the last few years, 2005 had the highest "global temperature" in the last century. Surprise, surprise: 1998 had the second highest "global temperature" in the last century. What are the next "hottest" years? 2002, 2003, and 2004 are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th "hottest" years of the century, but they are "cooler" than 1998 (the starting year for your cooling theory).

All I'm saying is that you need to look at the big picture.

---

You are definitely right about these years as being the warmest of the century. I'm a little confused about 2007 because a previous article and the subsequent chart show 2007 as "wiping out" the warming of the last century, a decrease of half a degree (Celsius), but NASA is saying that 2007 was unusually warm, tied with 1998. It goes onto say that 1998 was warmer due to "the El Nino of the century", so it is more notable that 2007 was pretty much as warm. I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards NASA as a more credible source...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

It would definitely seem that something is acting to ensure that the planet is receiving more heat with less solar irradiance, since the Sun is the source of heat in the first place.

Quote:

---

All I'm saying is that you need to look at the big picture.

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:
the average annual global temperature has declined over the last ten years. Not just declined over a year, not just declined over five years, but over an entire decade.

---

Quote:

---

. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

---

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Graphs posted earlier in this thread are either inefficiently extrapolated graphs that will not return many search results, or graphs based on stations that are not in the arctic, or even graphs based on stations that are only in one region of the planet. We want to see GLOBAL temperatures, because they are most important to our discussion. Here they are:



Here is the solar irradiance after 1980:



Sometimes what you'll see is that some of the data points in the irradiance graph from before 1980 are taken, and matched with data points in temperature. They will then ignore all data points on the downward of the cycle, and use high pass filters and 1:2:1 data manipulation. What results is the forced fit of a graph to the "measurements" (which end up looking nothing like the original graph). There is a good article at realclimate.org about this, and he manages to fit number of republicans in the senate to the number of sunspots on the sun this way:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/

Here are all of the important graphs, from the GISS at nasa:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Here is what they have to say about 2000:

Quote:

---

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

---

Quote:

---

How big do we need to look? It's indisputable the trend has been one of cooling for the last decade. Has it been one of cooling for the last two decades? Different question.

The thing is, the Global Warmenists triumphantly trumpet the data of a single year as being significant -- if that single year is warm. If the single year is cool, then they claim that a single year means nothing - gotta look at the big picture, ya know.

But this "heads I win tales you lose" style of argument is intellectually dishonest. You can't have it both ways.

Here are the facts - the percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has risen over the last decade. Yet the average annual global temperature has declined over the last ten years. Not just declined over a year, not just declined over five years, but over an entire decade.

For what it's worth, I agree that the change in temperature of a single year is meaningless, up or down. But we're not talking about a single year here. We're talking about an order of magnitude greater than a single year -- an entire decade. The most recent decade at that. So if that's not a big enough picture to satisfy the Global Warmenists, what is? Do we have to expand the examination of the trendline by another order of magnitude and look at the trend for an entire century, 1908 to 2008? If your answer is yes, why?

---

Quote:

---

In fact, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 2005 was.

---

Quote:

---

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.

---

Quote:

---

Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

---

See how you dont see barely any green? That means that the 5 year means of the error and the 5 year mean of the updated graph are virtually identical.

Here is what you were referring to...



So, you want to talk about "Shameful global warmists" as if global warming is a religion, instead of being based on good scientific evidence? I demand an explanation, from you and from anyone else who has been peddling this false meme, of why you have decided to present a chart completely out of context, representing 2-3% of the earths surface, as disproving GLOBAL warming. You peddle outright lies here, stating that the warmest years were NOT recent, but instead, 80 years ago.

Lastly, from NASA:

Quote:

---

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

---

Quote:

---

Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.

---

Quote:

---

Wrong.

I'm on a borrowed computer, so don't have access to my bookmarks, but maybe zappisgod will reprint the corrected GISS numbers. You are still linking to the faulty ones.

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I've mentioned this in other threads most notably about the bullshit artist Hansen who got caught with his thumb on the scale. A quick Google search of "Nasa restates temperature data 1930 hottest" turns up lots of hits but the most succinct is this Washington Times article.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004

Quote:
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




I can't remember who it was who caught Hansen's error. I'll look through my bookmarks. This will do for now.

---

Quote:

---

Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I've mentioned this in other threads most notably about the bullshit artist Hansen who got caught with his thumb on the scale. A quick Google search of "Nasa restates temperature data 1930 hottest" turns up lots of hits but the most succinct is this Washington Times article.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004

Quote:
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




I can't remember who it was who caught Hansen's error. I'll look through my bookmarks. This will do for now.

---

Quote:

---

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

---

Quote:

---

It was this guy:
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Kool-aid drinkers need not bother.

---

Quote:

---

In reference to the global record: it was not as extensively challenged nor does it have the reliability of the US only data due to the questionable nature of the stations.

The charts you posted show an unreadable overlay of dots. I went to the actual site and was still unable to make a reading on the overlay of lines and points when I blew it up as big as it would allow. What is a fact is that we are not currently experiencing any particular temperature anomaly (see other hot years in 30s and 20s) and there is not one fucking thing I have seen presented that establishes the causality arrow. There is NOTHING at all unique about the current global temperature to elicit this panicked nonsense. Unless you like panic. Then, bash away.

---