Global warming 'skeptics' claim the warming has stopped - why won't the data agree?

Question

We all know that NASA shows global warming continuing:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

So does the Hadley Center. They made a point of saying so:

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade....The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

The satellites show the same trend:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg

So if global warming has stopped, why won't the stubborn global temperatures do what they're supposed to?

'Skeptics' - where is your evidence that the warming has stopped? Or do you disagree with this claim?

Answer 1

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007)...."

Garbage!  This is misinformation at it's worst!  Over the last decade there has been no 'temperature change'!!  What ARE they talking about?  

Please, if you're going to use quoted sources, and you thrive at it instead of debating, at least use some that debate through honesty.  And La Nina...nobody knew til reading this that it affects the whole planet!! Lol!  It's less intense than El Nino, and El Nino barely makes it part way across North America from the Pacific!!  

It's amazing what these AGW supporting businesses will do for financing.

Answer 2

They don't WANT to accept it.  Doesn't matter what evidence or what facts there are, their cult doesn't believe in science.

Answer 3

Easy- because if you take the SAT data and draw a new trend line from about 2000 -------- then we can argue if the line is flat or actually going down--

This of course completely disagrees with the computer models projections.

Answer 4

Read the graph you cited about satellite data -- tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

This graph shows since 1998 that global temperatures have flattened out and decreased.

So for the past ten years things haven't gotten any warmer.

I really hope you are not trying to say anything different about this data source.

Answer 5

Of course you will get people (e.g. jello) trying to confuse the issue by trying to equate short term noise with long term trends but he is part of the "small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science... [this is] irresponsible and dangerous." (the Royal Society).

The majority of skeptics are described by thanatos. Exactly why they don't want to believe has been asked here a few times before but I think I can summarise with:

Fear:

Of change - basic human response in many cases

Self-interest:

Accepting reality = moral obligation to change lifestyle (presumed to be for the worse)

Ignorance/lack of knowledge:

Poor grasp of the science, logic, theory and/or supporting disciplines (e.g. statistics) - see blackcat's response

Ignorance/lack of capacity for independent thinking:

"My father says..." (herd mentality or faith-based)

Cosseted (disbelief):

Modern science and societies have shielded many citizens from some realities of life (e.g. many children don't realise that meat comes from animals) and tragedy or risk (e.g. maternal death rates have plummeted in the developed world in the past 50 years, smallpox has been eradicated, polio almost).

It is hard for some to think that:

a) There are some things that are only partially known (hence they don't know how to respond when there is debate or contradictions in the data/models)

b) That there could be danger "out there" that someone else (e.g. governments, scientists, doctors, engineers) hasn't come up with a way to keep me safe.

Inability (lack of training? youth?) to deal with partial data:

This is the need for black-and-white answers. I forget which question it was but one of the skeptics response to the IPCC findings was "only 90% certain? That means 10% doubt... in science 10% is huge". We are talking a 90% certainty that man is destroying the ecosystem that life depends on and this respondent was still unwilling to budge until given a 100% guarantee!

This is related to the personal risk-aversion that is increasingly prevalent in our societies: People won't make a decision unless it is 100% safe to do so in case they are found to be at fault later (cover-your-a** syndrome related to high amount of litigation).

Confusion:

**** has a point - the politicisation of the issue plus a few b**stds (see 1st paragraph) trying to get a short term financial advantage from a global catastophe have muddied the waters enough that it can be hard to see what the truth is.

Note:

Only a few of these attitudes can be changed with more or better data or facts. Most of the issue is defined by how people relate to, or approach, problem-solving hence the divisions and acrimony in this forum is only marginally resolved by providing more data (from either side)!

Answer 6

global warming has not stopped...but thats because we are coming out of an ice age.  the climate history of the earth shows that the earth could heat up another 10 degrees but then we will drop into another ice age.

Answer 7

In the US there are three primary data sets that are were all the formal projections come from.

You have already noted the GISS data from Hansen at NASA.  Of course the fact that thirty years ago Hansen said we would all be dead in the next ice-age within ten years, and ten years ago he said we would all be dead from global warming in ten years, doesn't serve to discredit him at all now does it.

The other two sources are UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems).  These two sources not only show that global warming stopped in 1998, but that it has been cooling since.

It's interesting that both of these data sets, from the same satellites as GISS have come up with such different data from GISS, but so  similar to each other.  It is also interesting that twice in the last year Hansen has had to admit that data was correlated incorrectly and had to change projections.

So Yes, I disagree with this claim.

Dana,

First I would have to ask what your Master of Science is in?  It is so prominently displayed that you must feel it to be very relevant to these discussions.  I would also ask you to state the school that it came from.  As a father getting ready to send his daughter off to college I have quickly learned that there are colleges that provide an education and then there are colleges that provide an indoctrination.

My BS is in geology, and my MS is in environmental science.  I work as an environmental consultant, fixing alot of the problems that we have created in our personal environment.  So through my education and my profession I have had the opportunity to not only study the earth rather extensively, but also to study my fellow man and the way he works.

The sources you site in your post have a compelling set of data.  They also have some really cool looking graphs.  What they don't have is the respect of anyone who works in the scientific community.  They're both on par with siting Wickipedia as your source.

Hansen has shown himself to be a nut on many occasions.  This is the man, who over the course of 1,200 interviews in one year, claimed time and again that the government was trying to shut him up on global warming.  This is also the man who claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record, and then an amateur mathematician looked at his data and noticed that he had done his math wrong and that 1937 was actually the hottest.  If I remember correctly, 1998 wasn't even in the top 10.

You may want to go to this site:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-w...

This guy provides a very good overview of what has been going on.

What I suspect, based on seeing your questions and answers for the last couple of months, is, that you are one of the "true believers" of anthropogenic global warming.  So I suspect that no matter how effectively I disprove this, it will only strengthen your belief, as you know deep down that man is bad, and evil, and must be punished, and that mother Gaia will only be happy when man is either off this planet, or living in your stone-age utopia once again.

Answer 8

Just one thing to point out: Dr Jello said, "Interesting that your graph stops at 2005."  I assume that comment was referring to only the first chart.  I want to point out that chart is using 5-year averages.  You can't do a 5-year average for a given year without having data for the 2 years before and after.

Answer 9

The blue line is a moving average.  Moving averages are lagging indicators and will start going down some time after the underlying signal has been going down.

Also note that the shorter the moving average you use, the less warming is apparent.  This indicates that the rate or warming is slowing or reversing.  

Not many researchers claim that the temperature is still going up and many are preparing the faithful for a couple of decades of cooling.

Answer 10

First of all, I have become very "sceptical" of any data coming from Hansen's fiefdom. It has been shown that they are adjusting the data. It has also been shown that their data gathering methods are less than perfect. Heck, they even have thermometers on top of roofs.

As for the rest, let's look at satellite temperature readings. This graph has all the different sources from 2002. Notice they all show decreasing temps.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINC...

I will agree that 10 years does not end the debate. But it sure puts a damper on your side when the hypothesis is that temperature follows CO2.  You do know that CO2 has continueed to rise for the last 10 years? Right.

Answer 11

I wasn't planning on answering, but noted that Geoweeg cited Huntsville as having data that disagreed with your assertion.  But he didn't provide a link.

The first site I visited did not back up his claim.  There may be another link that does, and I'd be glad to take a look at it if it were provided.

Answer 12

Your hypothesis is not warming, but catastrophic warming based on strong positive feedbacks.  For this to happen every decade has to be hotter than the previous decade.   Increases in co2 without any feedbacks will not cause catastrophic warming.  It is only with positive feedbacks that you can get catastrophic warming.  A 0.1 degree temperature increase per decade disproves your theory.   This is using your own data.

Statistically, there has been no significant temperature increases during the past decade.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

Answer 13

The data DOES NOT agree. Skeptics claim it's stopped, but trouble is, the Bush Administration keeps trying (to no avail) to pay off scientists to keep reports validating global warming science at bay.

Answer 14

well, obviously one of 'em's pretty disagreeable.

wonder which?  data?  skeptics?  data?  skeptics?

hard choice.

maybe i ought to flip a coin.

oh my, landed on the edge.

must be both of 'em.

Additional details:  (how's your day?  what were you expecting?)

"Everyone who's claiming the satellite data (UAH and RSS) show a cooling trend - see the question details, which show the satellites and surface data have the same warming trend."

you might consider my question, "Who's smarter? global warming deniers or believers?"

Answer 15

What is the definition of synchronized temperature anomaly?

UAH and RSS are supposed to have very different trends, there is something not right about the data in your link that shows satellite data, surface composite graphs.

Answer 16

Because man is so shallow that she thinks that everything important happens during their life time, and if they aren't part of it, it doesn't happen.  We even have trouble agreeing if it was warmer or colder last summer, much less last decade.

NASA wasn't around a century ago, and before, when all the most important climate changes took place.

Answer 17

Interesting that your graph stops at 2005.

The first 6 months of 2008 are the coldest first 6 months since 1998.

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

Answer 18

skeptic here.

it isn't global warming (current) or the impending ice age (circa 1970's) that I neccesarily disagree with or find egregious.

it is the political agenda behind the movement.

the agenda that seeks to punish America for its pollution, while giving a Complete Pass to the worst polluters, eg. china, india, russia.

the agenda that seeks to redistribute MY wealth to the people of those countries, based on the u.n.'s desire to eliminate the one nation capable of standing up to it as a superpower.

as for evidence, see "who's smarter-" in this category for that whole diatribe....

thanks for Your time and good night.

Answer 19

The atmosphere follows a six year cycle of the earth. You think in a box Edith Bunker!

Answer 20

The temperatures started going down after 1998. CO2 had nothing to do with it. In 10 years envirofascists will be screaming about global cooling like they did in the 1970s.