# The Decade, 1998 to 2007 - No Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2007, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359 "2007-06-09T14:05:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2007, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/81 "2007-06-11T03:14:44Z")
Well, nobody seemed to notice my previous post on this subject, so I’ll repeat it. It is meaningless to argue about the decadal trend 1998-2007. There is no statistically significant trend during that time, and in fact, _ **there is no ten year period in the cited record which is statistically different than zero.** _ So there’s nothing to discuss. w. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2007, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/82 "2007-06-11T03:16:00Z")
Ah, that’ll teach me to post without preview. I meant, of course, that there is no ten year period in the cited record whose _ **trend** _ is statistically different than zero. w. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2007, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/83 "2007-06-11T07:17:52Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] That because the rise between the glacial and interglacial period that occurred about 10000-15000 years ago (which, as I noted, occurred at roughly an order of magnitude slower pace than the rate of warming over the last ~30 years) does not relate in any way to mankind. You have created a complete “straw man”. [/QUOTE] Clearly not true, not even close, based on the facts and historical temperature anomalies even since 1 AD. The only modern day 20 year ending period to make into the top 10 was 2003 and it was 10th at +0.029C / year! Moberg (1 AD - 1979 AD), NCDC UAH (1980 AD = 2006 AD), NH Temperature Anomalies **Year Ending, Ending Year NH Temperature Anomaly, 20 Years Prior LS Fit - Degrees C / Year** 560 -0.071 0.036 561 -0.306 0.036 34 -0.001 0.034 33 -0.081 0.032 559 -0.138 0.031 35 -0.012 0.031 1560 -0.541 0.030 1491 -0.314 0.030 1561 -0.441 0.030 2003 0.388 0.029 562 -0.68 0.029 1490 -0.029 0.029 1087 0.133 0.028 32 -0.232 0.028 1088 0.078 0.028 1831 -0.422 0.027 1562 -0.393 0.027 1086 0.107 0.027 1559 -0.645 0.027 1492 -0.577 0.026 2001 0.279 0.026 2002 0.332 0.026 898 0.072 0.026 2004 0.289 0.026 1089 0.055 0.025 941 -0.055 0.025 1832 -0.469 0.025 558 -0.23 0.025 897 0.3 0.025 1563 -0.377 0.025 * * * Example Analysis Calculation: Year Ending 560 AD, NH Temperature Anomaly, 20 Year LS Fit Slope - Degrees C / Year 541 -0.755 542 -0.822 543 -0.846 544 -0.868 545 -0.862 546 -0.805 547 -0.682 548 -0.500 549 -0.390 550 -0.367 551 -0.373 552 -0.436 553 -0.651 554 -0.795 555 -0.587 556 -0.324 557 -0.237 558 -0.230 559 -0.138 560 -0.071 Regression Output: Constant = -20.5043 Std Err of Y Est = 0.15516 R Squared = 0.669 Correlation = 0.818 No. of Observations = 20 Degrees of Freedom = 18 X Coefficient(s) = 0.03627 Std Err of Coef. = 0.006017 * * * ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions\_by\_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt [http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt](http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2007, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/84 "2007-06-11T07:52:56Z")
[QUOTE=intention] Well, nobody seemed to notice my previous post on this subject, so I’ll repeat it. It is meaningless to argue about the decadal trend 1998-2007. There is no statistically significant trend during that time, and in fact, _ **there is no ten year period in the cited record which is statistically different than zero.** _ So there’s nothing to discuss. w. [/QUOTE] You hit the nail on the head. The average annual global temperature anomaly of +0.23C over the past 10 years is not significantly different than 0.00C. There should not be any discussion about unnatural global warming based on this. However, the discussion always ends up involving the rate of change of the anomalies. The rate of change of the anomalies based on a 20 year period shows that current rates of change are less, or at least no more at best, than historical rates of change, see post above. This added to the fact that you mentioned about the significance should be the end of the global warming saga in terms of unnatural causes based on the facts and analysis of the data. However, I am sure it will continue and it promotes interesting analysis of the data. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2007, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/85 "2007-06-11T16:07:06Z")
**Global Temperature Anomalies in Perspective, 17000 BC to 2006 AD** This analysis consolidates the SH Vostok (17000 BC to 0 BC), NH Moberg ( 1 AD to 1979 AD), and the NCDC G ( 1980 AD to 2006 AD) temperature anomalies. SH - Southern Hemisphere, NH - Northern Hemisphere, G - Global, BC is BC and not BP - Before Present. The Moberg NH anomalies were converted to Global anomalies via: Global Anomaly = -0.00534 + 0.744429 x Northern Anomaly (r = 0.97, LS NCDC 1979 - 2006) The Vostok SH anomalies were converted to Global anomalies via: Global Anomaly = 0.03243 + 0.92725 x Southern Anomaly (r = 0.86, LS NCDC 1979 - 2006) The NCDC Global anomalies are as reported. Due of the large amount of data to display graphically, the data from 1 AD to 1990 AD is represented every 40 years, in line with much of the Vostok data. The data from 1990 to 2006 is by year. This analysis clearly shows that during the current warming cycle, since the glacial period, the global temperature has warmed +8C to 0.00C over the period 17000 BC to 9000 BC. The global temperature anomalies from 9000 BC to 2006 AD have not been, on average, significantly different than 0.00C. The “hockey stick” is nothing but a miniscule blip in the annals of global temperature history and the current warming cycle. [![](http://blogster.com/host/images/79670112654.png) ](http://blogster.com/host/images/79670112654.png) * * * Moberg - ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions\_by\_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt NCDC - [http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt](http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) Vostok - [http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat](http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat) ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/86 "2007-06-12T01:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy] > [@chronos](#): > > If you do a comparative analysis to the most recent peak, you’re guaranteed to find a decrease since then. That’s what makes it a peak. Likewise, if you do a comparative analysis to the most recent trough, you’re guaranteed to find an increase. How would either be of scientific use? This statement is untrue and can only be made with the aid of hindsight. Using the UK graph as an example, we procedeed to establish new peaks every couple of years up until 1998. There has not been a new peak since 1998. [/QUOTE] How is **Chronos** ’s statement untrue? I would have phrased it differently, but if you select not only the highest peak in your data set as a starting point, but the highest peak for decades around, you’re bound to see a decrease due to your starting point being so high. It’s also unreasonable to expect a new, higher peak in the last ten years if 1997/1998 itself was the highest peak in the last 30 years. What do you find if you start your time series at 1990? Or 1970? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/87 "2007-06-12T02:39:04Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy] Clearly not true, not even close, based on the facts and historical temperature anomalies even since 1 AD. The only modern day 20 year ending period to make into the top 10 was 2003 and it was 10th at +0.029C / year! Moberg (1 AD - 1979 AD), NCDC UAH (1980 AD = 2006 AD), NH Temperature Anomalies [/QUOTE] This is going from bad to worse. First of all, I don’t think anybody believes that the proxy temperature reconstructions such as Moberg et al. are accurate or precise enough to do the sort of data analysis you are doing with them…You are taking the data way beyond what is justifiable. Second of all, I was not arguing that there have been no other 10 year periods where temperatures have gone up at this rate. I don’t think one has the data to say with any certainty what has happened over all 10 year periods in the past. What I was originally arguing against was your attempt to lump in the modern warming with that from the ice age by pointing out: (1) The warming out of the last ice age stopped many thousands of years ago. (2) While the planet did warm several degrees C, that happened over several thousand years so that the average rate of warming was only about 0.2C / century, a fact that is confirmed by the plot you made. (In fact, it looks like the warming at Vostok was ~0.2 C per century during that time and, because of the polar amplification, the global rate of warming was presumably somewhat lower.) (3) The current rate of warming, **which has now persisted for about a 30 year period** , is close to 0.2 C per decade. Finally, I was never making the claim that the fact that the warming has occurred so rapidly over the last 30 years alone shows it to be unnatural. The most important evidence that the warming is not natural lies in careful detection and attribution studies. It basically involves looking at the fingerprint of the warming and the various known forcings of the climate system. Also, we know how much radiative forcing is being produced by the elevated greenhouse gas levels and it would require significant changes in our understanding of the climate system…both in terms of the climate models…and in terms of paleoclimate records to explain away how this will not cause at least a reasonably significant warming. Finally, noone argues that the amount of warming that has occurred to far is comparable to that which occurred at the end of the last ice age…which I suppose is comforting since that made the difference between the current climate here in Rochester, NY and a climate where we were covered by 2 mile thick ice sheets! However, the warming that is occurring has just begun (as the levels of CO2 above the pre-industrial baseline value of ~280ppm is already ~2.5 X what it was in 1970). It is estimated that another 0.5 C would occur even if the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere did not continue to rise because the rapid increase in these gases has put the earth out of radiative balance. And, if ~0.2 C / decade warming continues into the future, it won’t be long before we will be committed to profound changes. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/88 "2007-06-12T02:42:57Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy] This analysis clearly shows that during the current warming cycle, since the glacial period, the global temperature has warmed +8C to 0.00C over the period 17000 BC to 9000 BC. [/quote] Well, if we work that out, it comes to an average rate of warming of 1 C per millenium or 0.1 C per century over that period. I should also add once again that your plot exaggerates this warming somewhat because it plots the Vostok temperature, which likely has close to a 2X larger factor of warming than the global temperature. Furthermore, not all of the temperature changes that occurred at Vostok occurred synchronously at other places around the world. In fact, some are evidently regional changes or shift of heat between the two hemispheres, likely mediated by changes in ocean currents. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/89 "2007-06-12T03:20:58Z")
Okay, ClimateGuy, let’s say, for the sake of argument that you’re right, global warming is, in fact, junk science. What, exactly, do you propose that we _do_ about it? Next, I have to ask, have you considered all of the _benefits_ that come from reducing greenhouse gases, even if there is **no** global warming? Benefits such as these:[ul] [li]Technological advancement. Dirt cheap fuel cells, for example, would last longer than batteries in things like laptops, MP3 players, etc.[/li][li]More money in the pocket of consumers. A device that uses less energy, but does the same amount of work, means I have more money in my pocket to spend on more toys.[/li][li]Lower levels of environmental pollution from things like oil spills and the like.[/li][li]Job creation. New technologies are going to create new employment opportunites for people, many of them at higher rates of pay.[/li][/ul]Even if global warming is a myth, can you think of a way to stimulate a concerted effort which will give those same benefits? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/90 "2007-06-12T09:09:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If you do a comparative analysis to the most recent peak, you’re guaranteed to find a decrease since then. … > [@ClimateGuy](#): > > This statement is untrue and can only be made with the aid of hindsight. … [QUOTE=wevets] How is **Chronos** ’s statement untrue? I would have phrased it differently, but if you select not only the highest peak in your data set as a starting point, but the highest peak for decades around, you’re bound to see a decrease due to your starting point being so high. It’s also unreasonable to expect a new, higher peak in the last ten years if 1997/1998 itself was the highest peak in the last 30 years. What do you find if you start your time series at 1990? Or 1970? [/QUOTE] Wevets, thanks for your post. Unfortunately, your (and Chronos’s) assumption that a peak is necessarily followed by a decreasing trend is not true. Here is an imaginary ten year series with a positive trend: ```auto YEAR TEMP 1200 4.0 1201 -4.0 1202 -2.0 1203 1.0 1204 -1.0 1205 2.0 1206 2.5 1207 2.0 1208 2.5 1209 2.5 ``` The linear trend for this series is +0.36° per year, despite the fact that the first year (1200) has a temperature anomaly of +4.0°, far and away the largest in the decade. So starting from a peak does not guarantee a falling trend in the following decade. Isn’t math weird? Regarding your second point, the decade before 1998 had two record high years (1991 and 1995), while the decade following 1998 has had none … w. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/91 "2007-06-12T14:51:06Z")
[QUOTE=intention] this series is +0.36° per year, despite the fact that the first year (1200) has a temperature anomaly of +4.0°, far and away the largest in the decade. So starting from a peak does not guarantee a falling trend in the following decade. Isn’t math weird? [/quote] That’s all well and good, but you’re using a _different data set_! I think this is a miscommunication. While in the general sense, it is possible to select or construct a data set where starting from a peak does not result in a falling trend, that is **not true for the particular data set posted by ClimateGuy and jshore (see posts #1, 44 and 55.)** My statement (and **Chronos** ’ but I don’t want to presume to speak for him) was not true for any and all data sets, but it is true for the particular data set found in posts #1, 44, and 55. To be clear, let’s look at a regression of the temperature anomalies – my back-of-the-envelope calculations give: For regression of temperature anomalies 1990 to 2006 inclusive (relative to 1998): About +0.09° per year A positive regression coefficient of +0.0058 An explained sum of squares of 0.05 (how much of the linear variation in temperature anomaly is accounted for as time advances – presumably with global warming, but the mathematical technique does not demonstrate causation) t[sub]s[/sub] = 1.03 (P is between 0.2 and 0.4 – not statistically significant, just like **ClimateGuy** ’s result – but it still reinforces my point) Isn’t math weird? > [@](#): > > Regarding your second point, the decade before 1998 had two record high years (1991 and 1995), while the decade following 1998 has had none … Given the data posted above, do the 1991 and 1995 peaks reach the level of the 1997/1998 peak? I don’t see that they do. See posts #44 or #55. 1991: +0.14 anomaly and **–0.36C** compared to 1998 1995: +0.13 anomaly and **–0.37C** compared to 1998 > [@intention](#): > > In fact, there are no statistically significant trends in any ten-year period of the entire record. (from way upthread, post #36) Then why get so hot and bothered over a 10 year period showing no global warming when you admit that it’s not statistically significant? Look at longer periods of time so that you can find significant relationships. The major problem I have with the logic presented in the OP is that it does this: 1. Assumes a strawman that global warming should be effective on a timescale of a decade when climate scientists tell us that global warming has its effects on larger timescales like centuries. 2. Chooses the highest starting point in recent history for the time period to investigate. 3. Concludes that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. It seems to me that a rational approach to this claim would be to examine a longer time period and start at a different year and see if the conclusion holds – which it does not appear to. It always raises a big red flag for me when the OP does not want to examine a larger data set. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/92 "2007-06-12T15:47:05Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy] 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. [/quote] [QUOTE=Larry Borgia] How is the normal temperature for the earth determined? [/quote] [QUOTE=ClimateGuy] By taking an average over a period of time. Just like heating or cooling degree days balance points, it is somewhat arbitrary but does not detract from the relative changes in temperature. [/QUOTE] But by your reckoning, the “average body temperature” of this patient is being figured from temperature readings that were only taken while the patient is in the midst of a fever. If the patient’s temperature averages 101.3 degrees F, and the last three hours the patient’s temperature has only been 100.9F, that doesn’t mean the patient is necessarily healthy. You need a longer baseline to determine an “average” temperature. We have lifetimes of data on billions of humans to determine that 98.6F is “average” body temperature, and not 101.3F. Similarly, we have historical temperature records going back many, many decades (not just the most recent 30 years) as well as other methods of determining temperatures even farther back (ice cores, etc.). All of the data show that the earth is in the midst of one raging global fever. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/93 "2007-06-12T16:55:07Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] But by your reckoning, the “average body temperature” of this patient is being figured from temperature readings that were only taken while the patient is in the midst of a fever. If the patient’s temperature averages 101.3 degrees F, and the last three hours the patient’s temperature has only been 100.9F, that doesn’t mean the patient is necessarily healthy. You need a longer baseline to determine an “average” temperature. We have lifetimes of data on billions of humans to determine that 98.6F is “average” body temperature, and not 101.3F. Similarly, we have historical temperature records going back many, many decades (not just the most recent 30 years) as well as other methods of determining temperatures even farther back (ice cores, etc.). All of the data show that the earth is in the midst of one raging global fever. [/QUOTE] Approximately 15C (59F) versus 15.23C (59.4F with the last 10 year average NCDC anomaly) is a raging fever? I don’t think based on the variances in the global temperature anomaly that this can even be shown to be slightly significant. Maybe you have an analysis supporting your statement. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/94 "2007-06-12T17:48:24Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] That’s all well and good, but you’re using a _different data set_! I think this is a miscommunication. While in the general sense, it is possible to select or construct a data set where starting from a peak does not result in a falling trend, that is **not true for the particular data set posted by ClimateGuy and jshore (see posts #1, 44 and 55.)** My statement (and **Chronos** ’ but I don’t want to presume to speak for him) was not true for any and all data sets, but it is true for the particular data set found in posts #1, 44, and 55. … [/QUOTE] **wevets** , thanks for the reply. Actually, despite your claim, _it_ is true for the particular decade referred to in the OP. The first data point (1998) is the largest one, but despite that, the trend is positive (+0.09°C/decade). I just made up an imaginary dataset because I thought I could avoid the rancor that seems to surround the real one. My bad. Isn’t math weird? [QUOTE=wevets] Then why get so hot and bothered over a 10 year period showing no global warming when you admit that it’s not statistically significant? Look at longer periods of time so that you can find significant relationships. [/quote] Say what? I’m not hot and bothered, I’m advising people _ **not** _ to get hot and bothered about a non-significant trend. The only thing we can conclude from the decade’s data is that the trend is not significantly different from zero. And as to why not look at a longer time period, it’s because I don’t want to hijack the thread. I agree with you that looking at longer time spans is much more productive, but you did notice the part about _ **“The Decade, 1998 to 2007”** _ in the thread title, didn’t you? w. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/95 "2007-06-12T19:04:21Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Okay, ClimateGuy, let’s say, for the sake of argument that you’re right, global warming is, in fact, junk science. What, exactly, do you propose that we _do_ about it? Next, I have to ask, have you considered all of the _benefits_ that come from reducing greenhouse gases, even if there is **no** global warming? Benefits such as these:[ul] [li]Technological advancement. Dirt cheap fuel cells, for example, would last longer than batteries in things like laptops, MP3 players, etc.[/li][li]More money in the pocket of consumers. A device that uses less energy, but does the same amount of work, means I have more money in my pocket to spend on more toys.[/li][li]Lower levels of environmental pollution from things like oil spills and the like.[/li][li]Job creation. New technologies are going to create new employment opportunites for people, many of them at higher rates of pay.[/li][/ul]Even if global warming is a myth, can you think of a way to stimulate a concerted effort which will give those same benefits? [/QUOTE] Maybe you could present analyses quantifying these issues as they relate to global warming. The purpose of this thread was not to debate issues but to perform analysis of published data relative to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/96 "2007-06-12T19:11:40Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] All of the data show that the earth is in the midst of one raging global fever. [/QUOTE] Even using the limited time scale presented by the Hadley data, the following graph is a global temperature anomaly analysis from 1850 to 2006. Note that 1911 was “cooler” relative to the 2 sigma limit than any recent years were “warmer.” This analysis also dispels the notion that the 1998 global temperature anomaly was “unusual” relative to the OP. [![](http://blogster.com/host/images/66136578127.png) ](http://blogster.com/host/images/66136578127.png) ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/97 "2007-06-12T19:21:44Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] The major problem I have with the logic presented in the OP is that it does this: 1. Assumes a strawman that global warming should be effective on a timescale of a decade when climate scientists tell us that global warming has its effects on larger timescales like centuries. 2. Chooses the highest starting point in recent history for the time period to investigate. 3. Concludes that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. It seems to me that a rational approach to this claim would be to examine a longer time period and start at a different year and see if the conclusion holds – which it does not appear to. It always raises a big red flag for me when the OP does not want to examine a larger data set. [/QUOTE] 1.) The analysis from 17000 BC through 2006 AD spans 190 centuries. 2.) Maybe the warmest but not statistically different than any other year and no warmer than 1911 was cooler. See above post. 3.) I have seen no analyses to date presented here that shows conclusively that abnormal global warming exists based on the the published data. ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/98 "2007-06-12T19:26:05Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Well, if we work that out, it comes to an average rate of warming of 1 C per millenium or 0.1 C per century over that period. I should also add once again that your plot exaggerates this warming somewhat because it plots the Vostok temperature, which likely has close to a 2X larger factor of warming than the global temperature. Furthermore, not all of the temperature changes that occurred at Vostok occurred synchronously at other places around the world. In fact, some are evidently regional changes or shift of heat between the two hemispheres, likely mediated by changes in ocean currents. [/QUOTE] Even using the limited Hadley data, the warming in the period 1911 to 1944 was greater than the current rate of change in global temperature anomalies ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/99 "2007-06-12T19:45:06Z")
Climateguy, what, exactly, are you saying (since your OP presented no question, nor a position in a debate topic): 1. The earth is not getting warmer 2. The earth IS getting warmer, but not at any different rate than it has in the past 2b. Ergo, we pesky humans haven’t contributed to this warming at all 3. ??? ---
**Author:** ![ClimateGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359/100 "2007-06-12T20:00:36Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] Climateguy, what, exactly, are you saying (since your OP presented no question, nor a position in a debate topic): 1. The earth is not getting warmer 2. The earth IS getting warmer, but not at any different rate than it has in the past 2b. Ergo, we pesky humans haven’t contributed to this warming at all 3. ??? [/QUOTE] In the current warming cycle, since the end of the glacial period, the Earth is getting no warmer than might be expected based on all of the data. This thread was started in GQ in order to promote analyses of all of the available data to show one way or another if this is true or not, not debate nor opinion. If it is not true, then you can assume we “pesky” humans, as you said, are just riding the currents of nature and not vice versa. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-1998-to-2007-no-global-warming/407359.md?page=6)