The Decade, 1998 to 2007 - No Global Warming

The National Climatic Data Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, has posted the May 2007 global temperature anomaly. Based on the 5 months of 2007 and the 5 month tracking pattern for the decade, we can project the 2007 annual global temperature anomaly at +0.30C versus +0.50C in 1998.

The National Climatic Data Center database: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

This is not based on opinion or what “feels” good. The data is presented for all to evaluate in the link above.

NCDC Annual Global Temperature Anomaly and Difference vs 1998, Degrees C

1998 +0.50C +0.00C
1999 +0.03C -0.47C
2000 +0.02C -0.48C
2001 +0.19C -0.31C
2002 +0.30C -0.20C
2003 +0.26C -0.24C
2004 +0.19C -0.32C
2005 +0.33C -0.17C
2006 +0.28C -0.22C
2007 +0.30C -0.20C Projected

You will hear that there was El Nino in 1998 causing the warmer temperatures. What you won’t hear is that there was also El Nino in 2006 causing the suppressed hurricane season, yet the global temperature anomaly was only +0.28C versus +0.50C in 1998.

You will hear that this data isn’t as good as other data. Then why would the NCDC continue to measure if it weren’t? Also, as long as it is scientifically “precise” then it as good as any other data to show global warming trends.

For the purposes of this thread, present your analysis and a link to the database you are using to confirm or disprove the National Climatic Data Center’s data on global warming. This will prevent non-meaningful debate about opinions and what “feels” right.

<mod>

(checking for question)

(blinks, looks again)

Nope, no question here.

Move along to Great Debates, nothing to see here.

</mod>

This graph based on figures from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office shows a very different picture.

If this data is exactly as good as other data you should have no problem taking into account other studies of equal quality, yes?

Pardon my slowness, but what do those numbers mean?

It was placed in general to facilitate analysis of climatic data, not debate nor opinion.

No it doesn’t. If that graph were up to date, it would show the same results. The current warming trend reached its peak in 1998. Since then the global temperature anomalies have been lower and have not continued to rise.

Correct. What are the analyses, where is the data and what is the source of the data?

Actually, it seems to show the same picture within the much broader context than what was offered by the OP.

Global temperature anomaly is the deviation from “normal” average surface temperature. For the purpose of both the OP and BrainGlutton’s citations, normal is defined as the average global surface temperature between 1971 and 2000 (inclusive), an arbitrary 30 year average.

So what we see, both in the OP’s intentionally misleading snapshot and in the more comprehensive chart is that the average global rise in surface temperature has had its largest recorded peak in 1998, but that we’ve been trending in the direction of global warming to the tune of about .66C per century.

The careful observer will note 2 things right off: 1) The curve created by the 5 year moving average steepens perceptibly over the last 20 years and 2) The figures presented by the OP attempt to deceive by comparing all anomolies over the past decade to the 1998 figure, which, being the highest yearly rise on record, would automatically make it appear to the unwary as if global warming is “slowing down”.

Okay, back up for a moment. Assume what you say is true. Since it’s stabilized it won’t get any worse.

I for one don’t mind that the Greenland Icecap and Canadian Arctic cover will be gone within the century. That won’t affect sea levels or the global climate at all, no. Everything’s peachy :rolleyes:

Put it another way. Climatologists have long said that a 1K difference can make a huge change in climate. That was back when it was only theoretical. Now that it’s almost happened, we are seeing a nearly huge change in climate. When theory predicts facts as they happen that’s a pretty strong validation of the theory.

On preview: as others have shown, you were showing arguing that the rate of warming is slowing, rather than the actual temperature. In other words, temps will still rise.

Climates have changed in the past 10 years nearly exactly to the extent predicted by climatologists for this 1/2K change, if not in the specific results. Do you want to bet that they will be right about the extent of change when it hits 1K, or 1 1/2?

  1. Comparative analysis to the most recent peak is a relatively standard measure.

  2. Recent history is a much better indicator of a trend than something that occured decades before. Unless you can show through analyses that recent global temperature anomalies are “dependent” on historical anomalies it is only conjecture.

Help a doper out here. Seriously what do those two columns of numbers represent.

The recent warming cycle began 10,000 to 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Canada, Europe and the northern US were covered by glaciers. Since the beginning of the recent warming cycle the global temperature has risen about 8C. Millions of cubic miles of glaciers have melted. Man has flourished because of this. “Warm is better than cold” ~ Svente.

The intent here was to analyze the recent trend in the global temperature anomaly relative to the 1998 peak. The fact is that since 1998 the current global warming trend has appeared to stop while the atmospheric CO2 level continues to rise. Can this be explained through analysis of the climatic data?

The first column is the year. The second column is the average annual global temperature anomaly from the NCDC data provided in the link in degrees C. The third column is the deviation from the peak anomaly in degrees C.

Replies…

  1. But not particularly useful in all fields, and particularly not in systems analyses.

  2. This is false. Recent temperature anomalies are dependent on the same factors which influenced historical anomalies. “Conjecture” would be looking at the trend and guessing that it will continue. This is not what the global scientific community has done. As pointed out above, the predictive accuracy of accepted theories regarding global warming has been demonstrated. Possibly not to your satisfaction, but inarguably beyond the level of conjecture, and to the satisfaction of the great majority of actual climatologists.

What is a temperature anomaly? I’m not a climate scientist, but my understanding of the word anomaly is an unexpected or unusual occurence that requires an explanation.

What exactly are the factors that caused the current warming trend that brought an end to the last ice age along with an 8C temperature rise?

The standard answer to this is to avoid the question and talk about the temperature acceleration in “recent” history. Apparent now “recent” history doesn’t support “acceleration” either since acceleration doesn’t just stop.

And thus, until the first column maintains a moving average of “0”, the trend is a warming trend. A negative deviation from the most recent peak is significant only in comparison to temperature subsequent to previous peaks, not to the overall trend.

Just for giggles… Look at the “dip” in the moving average after the peak in 1877. Compare it to the shorter dip subsequent to the 1944 peak. Now, does the 1998 peak most closely resemble those peaks or is it closer to 1915 or 1926?

QC/QA people, does this process seem to be in control? If so, what does the chart predict if no corrective action is taken?

Nor has it. See post #9.

The easiest way to look at this is to consider your body’s temperature. A normal temperature would be 98.6F. If your temperature rose to 99.2F it would be a temperature anomaly of +0.6F.