Temperatures are only 0.5 deg above average. Isn't this in a normal deviation range?

Question

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/02/27/cold_january/

Temperatures are only 0.5 deg above average after being below average by 0.5 deg for 130 years.

Isn't is normal for temperatures to vary over time by 1 degree?

And if temperatures were 0.5 degrees below average for 130 years, and 0.5 degs above average just for 30 years, then why is there so much alarmism since the temperatures had to be much above average, or above average for a longer time to get the average above 130 years worth of data?

Looking at the graph, do you conclude that this is much panic over normal temperature changes?

Has data been manipulated, like using a cold period like 1960 - 1979 as an average to make temperatures appear to be higher than they really are?

Answer 1

yes it is, this is the science that global warming nuts always ignore.  That want to make you believe that everytime you start your car you are damaging the earth.

Answer 2

Not when the temperature increase coincides with a dramatic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  CO2 continues to affect climate for 1000+ years, so we have to be very careful about what we set in motion.

Although some people seem to be lulled into a false sense of security by the PR slogan "the climate has changed naturally in the past", the evidence of past climate change associated with CO2 increases confirms that we can't take the risk lightly:

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44...

"A firm understanding of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature is critical for interpreting past climate change and for predicting future climate change1. A recent synthesis2 suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 °C..."

As for the results of such levels of natural greenhouse gas warming in the past:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

It was less reassuring to notice what the climate had looked like in certain ancient times when CO2 had stood at a high level... a level that humanity would eventually reach if we went on burning all available oil and coal. The Earth had been virtually a different planet, with tropical forests near the poles and sea levels a hundred meters higher. Worse, as one group pointed out, unchecked emissions seemed bound to bring not only "a warming unprecedented in the past million years," but changes "much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."(57)

It takes a while for expanses of ice as massive as the Greenland ice sheet to melt, but keep an eye on it in 2009 or 2010 when the next El Nino weather influence, plus the underlying trend of global climate warming, promises to set a new record for global temperatures.

Already there is eveidence that the consequences may be coming faster than many scientists (such as last year's IPCC report) predicted:

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserve...

So the fact that we've only seen the first degree of warming over the past 100+ years is no consolation since there's no end in sight.  Your comment "0.5 deg above average after being below average by 0.5 deg for 130 years" simply illustrates that the rate of warming is accelerating.

Answer 3

There was a cold period between 1960-1979??????

Every global warming graph I have ever seen shows that these years were at best average, and were way hotter than the period of 1920-1945.

Surely you are not suggesting that they would LIE about all this?  What could possibly be their motive?  Since they are funded by benevolent governments and not EVIL oil companies surely they would not tell us anything that wasn't true!

We all know that governments have no reason to lie to any of us.  Ever!

Answer 4

I really don't understand why you keep asking the same 0.5 deg question every 4 or 5 days. But, as you know, the key word in your question is 'average'. In some places such as the poles it is warmer and in others such as China it has been colder.

   So, yes it does matter and no data has not been manipulated.

Answer 5

1) That depends on how you define "normal".  The only time the planet's temperature has changed at this rate is when it's entering or exiting an ice age.  Since we're currently in a warm period, I would say no, in no way is the current climate change "normal".

2) I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.  However, the "average" is an arbitrary value.  NASA picks 1951-1980 as its average because it yields a nice round number of 14°C.  The "average" is just a reference point.

3) No, this is not "normal" (see point #1).

4) No, as stated in point #2, the reference period is arbitrary.  The rate of change has nothing to do with the reference point, and changing the reference point in no way alters one's perception of the rate of warming (steepness of the graph).

You're really grasping for straws here.

Answer 6

that graph your using is actualy 'evidence' of man made global warming at one point of view; if you look at that graph again, you will see a few points where the world seems to enter a cooling period but the mythical man made global warming came back 'stronger' and it made the earth warmer.. so my point is, the temperature may raise even higher than before just like at the other points..

man made global warming point of view: as our population increases and technology advances, the more we polute the air and create greenhouse gasses which make the earth warmer

my point of view: we just left the warming period and now in the cooling period and thats why in the end of the graph there is a decrease in temperature..