|
rushofblood
Stranger

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 245
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8092744 - 03/02/08 05:39 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
God/earth told me global warming is a hoax. I still don't think we should drive cars. She/He agrees.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8092814 - 03/02/08 07:05 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Has the global temperature been decreasing, as a trend, since 2000, or has it been increasing?
Decreasing. See the graphs posted earlier in the thread.
Phred
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8092859 - 03/02/08 07:39 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I cited the graph in an earlier post, but it was disputed as not typically being used by the scientific community. Here's the graph again:

And here's the counter-graph:

It is pretty hard to get a really good look at what occurs after 2000 though, since the graph covers so many years, which is why I didn't show the entire trend, as he questioned. He stated that "hadcrut" isn't used much by climatologists because of inefficient extrapolation. Here's one he posted spanning more time:

If the first graph is accurate for all intents and purposes, then it should be pretty clear that it is descending. I think my take on it, on page 11, makes pretty good sense if the temperature has been descending since 1998 and especially if it continues to do so for the next few years.
Now, looking at the second hadcrut graph, clearly the global temperature has been rising in all of that time... The number of sunspots has been rising for the last century at the same time the global temperature has been steadily rising. The sun, for the last sixty years or so, hasn't been this active for the past 1000 years. Now, clearly, the number of sunspots has decreased since 1980, as we can see below, and they will continue to decrease until 2010.

Now, proponents of anthropogenic global warming point to the period between 1980 and 2000 stating that it is evidence enough that the sun isn't the sole cause of warming, but I would happen to think that the amount of greenhouse gases prevalent now (anthropogenic or otherwise) has insulated the Earth so that, for the first time really, the temperature didn't follow the sunspot numbers. If the temperature is decreasing, it is because, after a certain point, the temperature has to follow the sun because you can't insulate something to contain heat forever.
That's just my uninformed take on the matter.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8092866 - 03/02/08 07:51 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You actually think a decrease in "global temperature" of the last 8 years or so has any bearing on the validity of global warming theory?
Higher temperatures trigger weather patterns that can create sea currents, hurricanes, and storms. What do these phenomena all have in common? They have the ability to lower the temperature of a certain area on earth, which could contribute to an observed decrease in the "global temperature."
Everything isn't simple cause and effect. There are too many variables for the earth to behave that way.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
Quote:
It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8092884 - 03/02/08 08:01 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Everything isn't simple cause and effect. There are too many variables for the earth to behave that way.
It's so amusing to me every time an anthropic-warming proponent uses simple cause and effect to support his position, then immediately turns around and argues that a chart showing a decade of cooling isn't valid because "everything isn't simple cause and effect".
You guys need to get your story straight or you're going to lose some credibility.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Diploid]
#8092898 - 03/02/08 08:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Did you even read the article? Or are you just going to take one of my statements, take it out of context, and turn it around on me?
Quote:
argues that a chart showing a decade of cooling isn't valid because "everything isn't simple cause and effect".
That's not what I said. I didn't say the chart wasn't valid. Keep putting words in my mouth.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8092936 - 03/02/08 08:26 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
joker_man said: You actually think a decrease in "global temperature" of the last 8 years or so has any bearing on the validity of global warming theory?
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying data?"
Nice Franky from Viveka.
From the Nature article, only the preamble of which was available.
Quote:
Data from cores drilled in polar ice sheets show a remarkable correlation between past glacial–interglacial temperature changes and the inferred atmospheric concentration of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
Emphases mine. I have to go, life calls.
--------------------
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
#8092961 - 03/02/08 08:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|

What the hell are you trying to say? Did you ignore the article I posted, too?
This is supposed to be a debate. I responded to fireworks_god's point with a counter-point. Address my counter-point or you lose.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8093006 - 03/02/08 08:54 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
joker_man said: Everything isn't simple cause and effect. There are too many variables for the earth to behave that way.
I realize that there are way too many variables for it to be that simple, and clearly I'm making a general statement. My point is that the Sun is the Alpha and Omega of climate change and the Earth is simply a system of interacting variables that respond, in the complex way that they do, to the increased and decreased solar output of the Sun.
In fact, I believe that they are expecting the Earth to experience more cooling this year, due to a strong El Nina or whatever. Of course, I'm assuming that such storms are simply the result of the complex system that is Earth responding to the decrease in solar output from the Sun.
If your article invalidates the usage of the global temperature, then what exactly do supporters of anthropogenic climate change base their conclusion that global warming is occuring upon?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8093066 - 03/02/08 09:21 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you, fireworks_god, for making this debate respectable.
Quote:
If your article invalidates the usage of the global temperature, then what exactly do supporters of anthropogenic climate change base their conclusion that global warming is occuring upon?
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.
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).
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
All I'm saying is that you need to look at the big picture.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8093152 - 03/02/08 09:49 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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.
Yes, I reread your article after I posted, and paid a bit more attention towards the end. I don't think anything has been invalidated, provided that everyone is using the same average.
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.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8093191 - 03/02/08 10:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
All I'm saying is that you need to look at the big picture.
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?
Phred
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8093209 - 03/02/08 10:16 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Come on hippies don't be slow next stop is global warming and its 5 6 7 open up the pearly gates well it ain't no time to wonder why woopy we're all going to die
Edited by Luddite (03/02/08 10:17 AM)
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8093238 - 03/02/08 10:37 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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.
I don't think this is true. Where/how are you getting this?
According to NASA the "hottest" years of the last century are ranked like this. 1)2005 2)2007, 1998 (tie) 3)2002 4)2003 5)2004
I'm not ignoring your question. I just want to make sure we're on the same ground.
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8093245 - 03/02/08 10:40 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I also don't appreciate being called a "global warmenist".
It doesn't add any credibility to your argument, global coolenist.
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8093431 - 03/02/08 11:38 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Fireworks seems like someone legitimately trying to understand the issues. That is great, Fireworks. To answer your earlier question, without a doubt, temperature has been increasing since 1998. 1998 was hot because, as you've determined, the "El-nino" of the century. However, the years before it, and the year directly after it, were not as hot as 1998, so the 5 year average was lower than the 2000s. What happened in the 2000s was that, for the first few years, the temperature was not as high as 1998, but the 5 year average was much higher. Then in 2005, we reached a global temperature that was even hotter than 1998. Here is a quote from NASA:
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."
We do believe that solar forcing has some forcing, so it is remarkable that 2007 even had the same heat as 1998, when the solar cycle was in full swing and el-nino was active. 2007 didn't have anything nearly like that. This means that something else is causing the heating. Once again, all the evidence points to greenhouse gases.
As for that hadcrut model, I posted the long term trend. The short term, there was an anomolous difference between one month and another month (not one year and another year). Looking at each month individually is a mistake, especially with this hadcrut, which is sensitive to spikes. Look at the 5 year average, and its obvious that the trend is upward. Once again though, most (if not all) major institutions of science do not use hadcrut because of inefficient extrapolation. The GISS is much more accurate and less sensitive to spikes in temperature. From either way, though, it is blaringly obvious that the temperature has been increasing.
I'll gladly answer more of your questions, Fireworks. You seem very open about this.
-------------------- .
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8093486 - 03/02/08 11:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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?
Temperature HAS been increasing according to NASA and all major records since 1998. In fact, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 2005 was. You can use graphs and charts that are meant for general month-by-month climate prediction and inefficient extrapolation if you want, but if you look at any major institution of science, such as NASA, the NOAA, and the journal of climatology, GISS is the way that the temperature of the Earth is measured. Even Hadcrut shows an increase in the averages (not montly, yearly and 5-year), with a spike in 1998 due to the El-nino warming of the century.
Look at my previous post though for independent verification. What is striking is that solar irradiance has gone down while temperature has gone up.
-------------------- .
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8093608 - 03/02/08 12:39 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Also remember, looking at the GISStemp graph, one could have said the same stuff being peddled in this thread, back in 1991-1992, when the temperature anomoly dropped. This is why 5 year averages work better to show a trend. If we would have gone by 1 year averages, we would have predicted that the temperature was "dropping" and that global warming was "over" in 1992. Of course, we had 5 year average trend-lines, and we knew it was not "over." Needless to say, the years following proved that.
-------------------- .
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
#8093894 - 03/02/08 02:33 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In fact, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 2005 was.
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.
Phred
--------------------
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8094191 - 03/02/08 04:16 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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.
WRONG.
The "Corrected numbers" only changed the US warmest year data, not the global data. You can look at the global data from the links I provided. In fact, NASA even talks about the revision in one of those links.. here is what they say
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.
This is after the corrections were made, which barely changed the global average tempereature (as I indicated before, only changed the average temperatures of the globe by .003 degrees C. Not that big of a revision, certainly not "disproving that the last decade has been the warmest ever"
-------------------- .
|
|