Does this latest report support the Global Warming doubters?

Question

The 2007 global temperature analysis was posted on the NASA site today.

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

Do any of the doubters have an explanation for why, if the warming has stopped, the data looks like this?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif

[Quote]

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

[End Quote]

If you don't know what a Standard Deviation is, or the significance of being outside the range of 2 SD, don't embarass yourself by trying to answer.

Answer 1

No--it does not (which is no surprise).  There really isn't any "debate" over global warming. These "doubters" are just kooks looking for attention--or paid mouthpieces for the fossil fuel industry. I doubt any of them could tell the diference etween mean, median,and mode--much less explain what standard  deviation means.

Answer 2

Here is their reference:

"Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999"

I thought they fired Hansen.   They sure should have.  He isn't exactly unbiased and their report is as expected.  It is a good example of scientists finding what they are looking for.

(looks like Charbat... beat me to bashing Hansen.)

Answer 3

What is the temperature supposed to be?  Please enlighten me with your Superior intellect.  Really what is the correct temperature and should if fluctuate?  what caused the change in climate before fossil fuels?

Also could you tell me what the temp is suppost to be tommorow?

Really I would like to know what the correct earth temperature should be and how long should it be that way.

Answer 4

Just to save the deniers the time of even typing I thought I would answer on their behalf....

  Al Gore blah blah blah Inconvenient Truth was totally wrong rant rant blah blah the ice is thicker in the Antarctic....No facts to support this blah blah blah 400 scientists say global warming is not true blah blah rant rant Al Gore Al Gore and it snowed in Bahgdad blah blah where is you global warming theroy now...it has been hotter than this before blah blah there is no proof to support global warming blah blah blah.

  I think that about covers it but for good measure I will squeeze in one final Al Gore.......Al Gore.

Answer 5

It's funny to watch the deniers collapse into ad hominem attacks when they realize that the data completely supports the AGW theory.

They call the head of NASA GISS a "discredited political hack" who should have been fired, and accuse him of falsifying data.  Their justification for this slander is "follow the money."  LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanse...

Then they resort to the same old amateurish "warmer is better" nonsense.

Then they claim other data shows "a third year of cooling."  Even if that were the case (which it's probably not), cooling from 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 is not a trend, it's noise in the data.

Then they claim the sun's role has been underestimated when the greatest warming any peer-reviewed scientific paper has attributed to the sun is a maximum of 35% of the recent warming, and they had to make very questionable assumptions to make the attribution that high.  In fact, that's the very paper Jello's link is referring to.  Most studies put the recent solar warming at 0-10%.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

As gcnp has stated, the deniers are discovering that their arguments violate basic physics.  That's why they're forced to resort to ad hominem attacks, false claims, and discredited arguments.

Answer 6

NOAA's measurements look a little different and it appears that we are headed for a third year of cooling.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

Edit:

Up to date satellite measurements of the lower troposphere:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_descri...

gcnp58, here's a PhD Physicist's take on the subject:

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Answer 7

Larry Larry Larry, don't just focus on the September plot.

Here's the NOAA summary for the entire year:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...

You have got to accept that wishing it weren't so doesn't make the physics go away.  CO2 is providing a net warming of 1.6 W/m^2 and that number is increasing.  That heat is going somewhere.  When it does, climate changes.  Period.

I'm sorry you can't accept physics, but it doesn't care what you want to be true, it just is.

Anyway, no, the latest report doesn't support doubters.  The physics doesn't support doubters.  We all need to start asking the "doubters" what they think is wrong with the physics.  If they think CO2 isn't warming the planet, they have to believe something is seriously wrong with some very very basic physics at a very very fundamental level.  We cannot let them skate on this any longer.  If they disbelieve CO2 isn't warming the planet, or that a forcing of 1.6 W/m^2 is unimportant, they have to explain precisely what in the physics is wrong.  

Quite simply, at this point, denying CO2 is changing climate is internet kookery and should not be given any intellectual legitimacy.  We can debate what the outcomes will be, from highly unpleasant to outright disastrous, but saying it ain't happening at this point is stupid.

Answer 8

So what??

Better that it's getting warmer than colder.

The graph doesn't address the cause.  It only shows that the data (however suspect) shows that it is getting warmer.

Answer 9

The scary temperature graph starts at the year 1880. Considered the approximate time we begin emerging from the little ice age.

Answer 10

So, do most of these people with their heads in the sand come from Texas?

Great article about attitudes... and how stubborn people can be.

Green is turning into gold and the status quo is turning into ****    SHHHHH  don't say IT

Answer 11

It's doubtful that the climate data is correct world-wide.  Anthony Watts and a team of volunteers have conducted on site reviews of about 1/3 (so far) of the 1300 or so ground-based weather monitoring stations in the U.S.  Thus far, only 15% of those reviewed met minimum standards for operation and placement.  The result being that the ground temps used by NOAA and other climate organizations are flawed.....in that the reported temps are higher than actual.  It is suspected that monitoring stations in other countries face the same issue.  In other words, there is a lot of bad data out there..... resulting in bad science....Something that Mr. Gore has "conveniently" failed to note in his presentations:

Answer 12

Nope! Just the opposite in fact! Just look at the summary. It says the solar variations were in the cool phase,making 2007's record breaking warmth all the more startling. Nice try.

Answer 13

I noticed that most of it was taken from old data.It might have a useful purpose some where down the pike.If you do farther reading on the subject.You will discover that they are trying to recalculate corrupt data from the older satellites @ the University of Alabama in Huntsville.This however doesn't mean it won't support your ideology.

Answer 14

Funny how the data from discredited political hack James Hansen is so far out of whack with all of the other data sources out there.

Please explain why this data is consistently much higher than other global warming measurements (such as rss). Thanks.

and yes. he is discredited. Follow the money. I wonder how long before Hansen has to retract THIS data as he did for the U.S. temperatures last year.

Answer 15

Why are you lying about the datasets?

Is it because they don't match the GISS data?

Answer 16

No one doubts that the Earth is warming.  Your graphs prove nothing.  

What you believe to be the cause is wrong.  Here is what the scientist at NASA have to say:

"SUN’S DIRECT ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE UNDERESTIMATED"

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...