3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoRight, 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.