Seven graphs to end the global warming hype - Should Rudd read this?

Question

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government feel sick.

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn’t warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

Sea ice now isn’t melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren’t increasing and the rain in Australia hasn’t stopped falling.

What’s more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.

In fact, it’s even a bit cooler. So, dude, where’s my global warming?

I can't post graphs, so to see the graphs and read more check out http://myparadigm.org/main/index.php?topic=291.0

Answer 1

Hey Bob, thanks for the "real" data.

"Here's the real deal on global temperature, from NASA. (The red line).

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

The same thing applies to his ridiculous claims about sea level. Once again, the verified data:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/"

Your "real" data (GISS) shows that the temperature in the US is no different to what is was in the 1930's despite a 25% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958.

Your other "real" data (colerado.edu) shows that sea levels have not risen, indeed have fallen since 2004.

Rudd will not pay attention now as there are 'green' votes to be won. But when he has to pay billions of real dollars abroad (mostly to Russia) in 2012 voter sentiment will shift dramatically and so will the policies of the politicians.

Answer 2

I'll be quick because, as Bob has already pointed out, this is a very biased report but just looking at the graphs (which is what you and the article ask us to do) rather than reading the hype/spin:

#1: Shows an upward trend in global temperature over the past 20 years with a drop in the past 12 months (not statistically relevant) equivalent to the drop ten years ago.  After the 1999 drop, average temps once again started to climb although slower than the previous ten:

SUPPORTS GW THEORIES

#2: Same thing except that here there is the first intimations that the swings are getting larger, more chaotic (hence the large drop this year):

SUPPORTS GW THEORIES

#3: Shows a very steady and clear increase in global sea levels of 3.2mm per year over the past 14 years:

SUPPORTS GW THEORIES

#4: Actually just hard to see and interpret. I found similar graphs from NOAA but they all showed a long term decrease in ice area and volume with a significant increase in the Antarctic in the past year:

EQUIVOCAL

#5: Overall number of storms down slightly with severe storms stable (but statistically dubious as numbers are low). Doesn't give an indication of where this is; the text suggests these are local numbers, not global:

EQUIVOCAL

#6: Local (Australia) rainfall amounts generally unchanged; not so relevant to global affect. The text does point out, however, that the pattern of rainfall has changed (shifted locations) which is predicted by GW:

IRRELEVANT

#7: I will bite my tongue as I know this graph quite well and know some of the inherent flaws in the interpretation, the data (localised, not global) and the "correction" methodology. So,if I didn't know anything about it, just by looking a this graph, I would say:

a) The data ends 70 years ago so not sure of the relevance for today

b) Earth has been warmer than it was in 1940

c) We are (were) in a warming phase and the rate of warming is at least as fast as it has ever been:

EQUIVOCAL

Answer 3

OK, let's look for ourselves. Since you asked us to.

1. Take a close look at the vertical scale on the left-hand side: "Temperature anomaly (1979-2007 baseline)". What does that tell you? It tells you that the AVERAGE temperature for the period 1979-2007 was zero, on this graph. And what does the graph show? Every single month between 1998 and 2007 was above average. EVERY MONTH warmer than average. 1998 was hotter than usual because of a big El Niño that year, and 2008 has been (and will be) cooler than usual because of a big La Niña this year. If you look at the long-term CLIMATE trend, removing the weather trend, it's been consistently upward for decades. Here's a graph:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2626...

2. Same comment. Note how the idiots produced this graph include the "El Niño warming" circle, while deliberately excluding the "La Niña cooling" circle that they should have included, had they been honest. (Which they aren't.)

3. Gee, it sure looks like seas are rising to me. I'd like to check the source to make sure, but CCAR doesn't have this graph on their website, as far as I can tell, nor the data to support it. So how do we know that Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp hasn't distorted the truth (again)? In fact, they have. Here's a true, global, satellite derived graph of sea surface height. And it's not pretty.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/oc...

4. A "Global sea ice anomaly" is an inherently biased indicator, because in a warming world you expect Arctic sea ice to be declining (since the Arctic is composed mostly of sea ice), but it should be INCREASING in the southern hemisphere (because the Antarctic is composed mostly of land ice -- and when land ice breaks up, it falls into the sea, increasing the amount of sea ice.) And hey, guess what? When we look at the two hemispheres singly, that's exactly what we find.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

5. So there are fewer cyclones around Australia? And that's supposed to be a global indicator?

6. Ditto. Since when is rainfall in Australia a global indicator? In fact, global climate models predict that in many places total rainfall will not change much. What will change is that it will come in shorter, sharper bursts. That means more floods, separated by longer droughts. There's nothing in this graph that indicates climate models are wrong.

7. World Temperature (Reconstructed). Based on Loehle 2007, a study which explicitly excludes tree-ring data. In other words, he threw out 80% of the temperature proxy data that's available (and most climatologists would argue, he threw out the BEST 80%) to get his graph. And his result? Since his proxy data stops in 1980, the highest proxy temp on his graph was in 870 AD, at .58° C. But that value has already been exceeded in 2005 -- two years before Loehle's paper -- at .62° C. So the caption, "And it's been hotter" is blatantly false.

Well that's what you get when you trust the newspaper to tell you about climate, instead of doing your own research.

Answer 4

It's not hype, it's real, and mostly caused by us.  And I'm sure Rudd has seen this nonsense before.

This is just bad data from a very provincial political journalist.  Note how he thinks the Australian Prime Minister is the key person involved.  

Here's the real deal on global temperature, from NASA. (The red line).

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

The same thing applies to his ridiculous claims about sea level.  Once again, the verified data:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Answer 5

the connection didnt work :(

Answer 6

Yes, it has been cooling globally over the past decade.  1998 was the peak of the global warming trend.  

I notice some links to NASA data here.  Recently there have been concerns that NASA has deliberately altered historic temperature data, creating a 'new' but false history.  Their data is not trustworthy.  It seems some people here are having trouble reading graphs...even spelling it out for them doesn't help.  Hopeless lefties!

Manmade global warming isn't happening and never was.  The junk science that supports it is being proven wrong.  People in Australia have every right to be concerned with added taxes to support a scam like global warming, maybe a change in government is needed there.

Answer 7

Hahaha im thinking that kevin 07 is losing its touch lol

frankly i think hes stupid for the fact that he hasnt questioned anything, he is taking the scientists word for it, i think hes just looked at one chart and thats that.

But i think we should give the guy a break, nelsons been battering him at every oppertunity, and i dont think he thought being the pm would be this hard, hes under alot of stress

Answer 8

The graphs are interesting & open to interpretation. But who to believe ?

Has any study been done to examine change in the tilt of the earth's axis ?

Just like the bias on a lawn bowling ball or a weight on a car tyre, the degree of "bias" on the earth must be effected by the loss of weight in "Arabia" by the removal of oil in that part of the world.

Has any calculation been made to determine how many billions of Tons have been removed ?

Any change in "bias" will effect the orbit of the earth through space.

This must have an effect on the tilt of the earth's axis, and contribute, or in fact cause, climate change.