There has been zero global warming for the past 10 years plus 2 months (see graph below). The CO2 level has continued to rise, yet the global temperature has not.
In fact, there is now a trend towards global cooling.
How will the Al Gore followers and the IPCC address these facts? How will the current political environment change with a cooling Earth?
Sorry my mistrust, but… it is suspected that some people get paid to confuse the global warming debate with less then reliable data.
Seeing as you are a guest and this is your only post, could you tell us some more about why you signed up to post just this?
The data I am using in the graph is the Hadley and UAH data (see links below). These are well known and the established basis for the assessment of global temperature.
My old screen name expired … just continuing the global warming / cooling saga.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The party line seems to be that this is “weather” not “climate.” According to Realclimate:
However, if the current “weather” keeps up, eventually it would obviously be a big problem for Al Gore and company.
Time to pay up then.
A one-time 30-day guest membership on the Straight Dope Message Board (“the SDMB”) is free.
Your old screen name on SDMB? You might want to contact a Mod to keep from getting yourself banned.
Because Al Gore really really wants there to be AGW :rolleyes:
What’s it going to take to get everybody to start referring to it as global climate change?
I don’t know who made the above quote, but this isn’t about a one year trend. This is about a 10+ year trend.
Sounds like moving the goal posts.
Did you read the RealClimate article?
Lol. He may very well.
But obviously I was referring to the fact that a lot more doubt would be cast on the predictions/claims of him and others in his camp.
:rolleyes: indeed.
Climate Zone:
What was your previous screen name?
How do you respond to the linked RealClimate article? Seems to pretty much invalidate your OP.
Then you should obviously use language that does not try to imply that Al Gore and minions are actively hoping for the climate to get worse.
Climate Guy.
Why do I have to read about something when I have the actual data and am fully capable of analyzing it myself? Plotting the data and running LSFs are elementary. Isn’t this what we are trained to do via our education. No matter how many “articles” I read, the actual data isn’t going to change.
I think we should let the mods worry (or not) about the mod stuff and focus on the OP.
How does the graph in the OP jib with this graph of temperature? This one shows a pretty steady increase…so, asking the OP why s/he thinks there is a difference.
ETA: This graph shows a bit more data…and again the trend is pretty obviously up. I thought it was pretty well established that temperatures were on the rise…so, extraordinary claims are going to need more than a link. Going to need some depth to expand on exactly why the OP’s chart is right and most other data in the world is wrong.
-XT
That graph is annual, not monthly, and attempts to look at anomalies over a long period. That graph is misleading in that it is only looking at the “noise” (anomalies) alone and not on top of the “signal”.
If you plot it by month on top of a 12.1C norm, you will get a completely different result, particularly when looking at the past decade.
I provided the links to the monthly Hadley and UAH data. Why don’t you graph it yourself if you have any doubts?
Your graph has resolution so poor that I can’t even see what it’s claiming to show or what the sites at the bottom are. I don’t suppose you actually have a real article that explains it?
In any case, there has been global warming over the past ten years. The five-year moving average shows it. That gives a much better prediction of trends than a simple line graph.
They will not, because the earth is not cooling. And you already know that, because it was established in an earlier thread that you participated in.
Should we take a bet on how many times this particular bit of junk science will show up in GD? I say fifteen times.
In fairness, I would concede that 10 years of no warming – considered alone – is not enough to torpedo catastrophic AGW theory. (Of course there are other facts that torpedo the theory pretty well.) But every year that goes by with cooling or no warming is a bigger problem for the catastrophic AGW theory.
