4 ms·

How can you publish an article like that and not include a graph? Anybody know what data they are taking about?

Retric 14y ago
Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting. http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-history http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-... PS: This is the kind of article that ignores error bars in predictions. The point is to create interest and sell articles.
- glenra 14y ago
  >Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting. Your source shows a graph that stops in 2005 and one that stops in 2000. But the subject of OP is how much it seems to be warming (or not) in this century. Those extra 7 to 13 years of data that your graphs left out is the interesting part.
  - Retric 14y ago
    If you want more recent data here it is: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ However, my point was looking further in the past you see a more complex trend than the near strait line temperature increase from 1960-2000 or 1920-2000 that are used to scare people. Basically, the five year average is more random than some carefully crafted graphs show.
    - glenra 14y ago
      Right, and it was a plausible response back when the rate of increase had only been slow-to-none for ~5 years. But as the length of the slowdown increases to more than a decade and starts to approach two decades that becomes less tenable. There's a REASON those two charts haven't been updated, which is that even a plot of the five year average points WOULD show a slowdown if you did it today. Yes, it's true that there have been extended slowdowns/downturns before, (eg, 1920-1940) but those were seen as needing an explanation. (Or at least some handwaving.) AFAIK we don't really have an explanation for the current slowdown. One possible explanation is that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than we thought.
glenra 14y ago
It's talking about the general flattening of the temperature trend in the last decade or two. Try this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti The default woodfortrees index averages a bunch of different global temperature series so you don't have to pick just one. (It starts in 1979 because that's when we first had satellite coverage.) If you try to plot a linear rate from that, the trend depends on what year you start from. From some starting years the trend is increasing (though less than predicted) but from other starting years the trend is flat or even decreasing. For an example of the latter, here's a trendline for the last ten years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2003/plot/wti/from:2003/trend http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2003/plot/wti/from...

Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting. http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-history http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-... PS: This is the kind of article that ignores error bars in predictions. The point is to create interest and sell articles.

glenra 14y ago
>Here are some graphs which make this seem less interesting. Your source shows a graph that stops in 2005 and one that stops in 2000. But the subject of OP is how much it seems to be warming (or not) in this century. Those extra 7 to 13 years of data that your graphs left out is the interesting part.
- Retric 14y ago
  If you want more recent data here it is: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ However, my point was looking further in the past you see a more complex trend than the near strait line temperature increase from 1960-2000 or 1920-2000 that are used to scare people. Basically, the five year average is more random than some carefully crafted graphs show.
  - glenra 14y ago
    Right, and it was a plausible response back when the rate of increase had only been slow-to-none for ~5 years. But as the length of the slowdown increases to more than a decade and starts to approach two decades that becomes less tenable. There's a REASON those two charts haven't been updated, which is that even a plot of the five year average points WOULD show a slowdown if you did it today. Yes, it's true that there have been extended slowdowns/downturns before, (eg, 1920-1940) but those were seen as needing an explanation. (Or at least some handwaving.) AFAIK we don't really have an explanation for the current slowdown. One possible explanation is that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than we thought.

glenra 14y ago

It's talking about the general flattening of the temperature trend in the last decade or two. Try this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti The default woodfortrees index averages a bunch of different global temperature series so you don't have to pick just one. (It starts in 1979 because that's when we first had satellite coverage.) If you try to plot a linear rate from that, the trend depends on what year you start from. From some starting years the trend is increasing (though less than predicted) but from other starting years the trend is flat or even decreasing. For an example of the latter, here's a trendline for the last ten years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2003/plot/wti/from:2003/trend http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2003/plot/wti/from...