Why don't global warming deniers understand that 1998 was simply an unusually warm year?

Question

Individual years vary. 1998 was unusually warm, 1999 unusually cool. The data shows that clearly, and also shows that long term we're going nowhere but up.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf

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

This argument simply shows how little the deniers understand science and data.

Answer 1

Every year in 2000 was cooler than 1999 except for 2006.  This is a trend.

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

I think the Russians are ahead of us on this.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,"

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/590789...

We are already seeing temperatures come off of their highs in the late 90's, even with co2 continually increasing.  There's something more to Hansen's theory that warmers missed.

Answer 2

jello - please quit being so disingenuous.  Surely you know the difference between the lower 48-states in the US and the entire surface of the planet.

Answer 3

I don't think Dr Jello understands that he just posted a table of the 48 states and the data Bob is posting is GLOBAL. Or, maybe he does, but is trying to divert our attention. If we are going to discuss GLOBAL Warming, then let's use GLOBAL average temperature data. Bob has done that and NASA shows 2005 as the warmest year!!!

Answer 4

Warmth is generally a good thing.  Those pretending it isn't are ignorant, disingenuous, devious, gullible, or simply wrong in my opinion.  Why is it that you never talk about the benefits of warming.  I suggest you delve deep into your psyche and ask yourself why your cup is always half empty.

Answer 5

I just wanted to point out that Dr Jello accidentally gave a link of surface temperatures for the Continental US.  

Climate change is a global phenomenon and the continental US represents less then 2% of Earth surface area. He probably meant to provide surface temperature anomalies for the entire globe:

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

Edit: Oppps... it looks like everyone else noticed this mistake too.

Answer 6

Also, recent research findings show that 2005 is the warmest year yet  Of curse, the deniers never trouble themselves to actually look at the facts.

Answer 7

This question shows how little data Bob actually has [seriously, he's cited it the same link a gazillion times]

Answer 8

Anyone have any Predictions on the Global Warming Predictions.

Answer 9

i don't understand why they keep using lower 48 U.S. temperature data instead of global data.

Answer 10

It was an el nino year, which tends to have an effect on the global climate, and global averages.  

Nothing can predict what will happen in the future bob.  No one, no computer, it doesnt matter how much data they have on the subject, they dont have it all.  Stop trying to predict the future.

Answer 11

Quite simply because the argument sounds good on the surface, as long as you don't actually look at the data.  A superficially sound argument is the best the deniers can do.  Clearly they can't explain the basic scientific facts the way AGW can, or they would have an easy time answering my question:

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

If global warming has "stalled" or stopped, that gives the deneirs an argument (of course, then you have to explain why it stopped, and they can't even explain why it started), so they really want it to be true.  If they need to ignore the clear warming trend and only look at year-to-year noise in order to make such an argument, they'll do it.  I think deep down they know they're wrong (we've proven it dozens of times), but their denial won't allow them to admit it.

Answer 12

Hmm, yes, your assertion is correct on the face of it, but look deeper, okay?

I kinda sorta understand data.

And, best as the data available show, there has been a true change of about 0.6 degrees difference upwards over the last, oh, thousand years. Based on tree ring core studies, see the work of Mann, Jones, Britta, Pollack, et alia. And, it is possible that a thousand years ago was the end of a 'mini ice age', and the current temps are the true 'normal'. Now, we may have had some transient changes as measured in years [not centuries] but this is called weather.  

I submit that yes there have been changes, and we do need to be concerned, but being short sighted can lead to poor decisions and inappropriate public policy decisions.

Answer 13

Cuz we're all stupid Bob.

"Of course, you can deny the data. Most smart people don't." - Bob

And now I'm ignorant:  "I think deep down they know they're wrong (we've proven it dozens of times), but their denial won't allow them to admit it."  - Dana1981