5 ms·

I wish the NYT article included more data (though there is a chart). Raw data is available at NCDC[0] It is true that the data shows a continually warming tren

I wish the NYT article included more data (though there is a chart). Raw data is available at NCDC[0] It is true that the data shows a continually warming trend, with 2014 as the warmest on record. It is also true that the recorded warming is proceeding at a very slow pace, with the new record anomaly of 0.69 C only 0.04 C higher than the previous records of 2005 and 2010 and only 0.06 C higher than the record of 1998. It is false to say that the globe is not warming, but it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century. The "warmest X years have all occurred since Y" but they are also clumping together pretty closely and moving up from that clump ever so slowly (which incidentally makes me quite optimistic about our continuing technological progress away from fossil fuels) [0]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

phaemon 12y ago
That links says that temperatures are rising "at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970." So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.
- joshuahedlund 12y ago
  The "average rate per decade" is highly variable depending on your starting decade. The average "pace" of the last 4.5 decades is 0.16 C per decade, the "current" annual "pace" of the last 10 years is less than 0.01 C per year. Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
  - phaemon 12y ago
    The last 10 years are far too short a time period to establish anything due to the variability of the data. If you include more data you get a more accurate result, so do that. 30 years is the usual minimum period considered for climate, so what's your purpose in choosing something considerably shorter? Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.
300bps 12y ago
Thank you for the data, but it brings up a big question for me. How do they boil down "Global Temperature" to a single number from 1880 to 2014? In 1880 there were only 38 states and the Statue of Liberty hadn't been delivered yet for 5 years. Today they have temperature sensors in Antarctica, the North Pole, Alaska, Utah, the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the middle of the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc. Did they have these same sensors in 1880? In 1900? In 1920? Where is the data that shows the constituents of the "one true number" that claims to stretch over a period of 134 years?
- ch4s3 12y ago
  You know the phrase "The sun never sets on British soil"? Well that dates to the 18th Century, and they we measuring temperature everywhere they were. True, expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic were later, but they also recorded temperature. So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good.
  - 300bps 12y ago
    So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good. Do you have any evidence of this claim? Specifically, do you know where I can find the formula used to calculate the global temperature and the constituent temperature readings, locations and time/dates? Common sense says that such readings would be spotty at best and also that they would be incomparable between 1880 and 2014 but since they are comparing them I'm very curious of their methodology. EDIT OK I found what claims to be the source code of the software that massages the numbers here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ EDIT2 OK I found the underlying data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ It's exactly what I thought. Hardly any of the stations go back to 1880 and the ones that do are unbelievably spotty with sometimes two years or more of missing data. Oh and they're apparently not even measurements - they're "reconstructions". And apparently they re-adjust these reconstructions all the time. (see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html#ixzz27YZRxqIW http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_rul...) The environment would be much better off if we stopped pretending we know things we don't and just agree that it is stupid to squander a finite resource like fossil fuels and start conserving it.

phaemon 12y ago

That links says that temperatures are rising "at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970." So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.

joshuahedlund 12y ago
The "average rate per decade" is highly variable depending on your starting decade. The average "pace" of the last 4.5 decades is 0.16 C per decade, the "current" annual "pace" of the last 10 years is less than 0.01 C per year. Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
- phaemon 12y ago
  The last 10 years are far too short a time period to establish anything due to the variability of the data. If you include more data you get a more accurate result, so do that. 30 years is the usual minimum period considered for climate, so what's your purpose in choosing something considerably shorter? Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.

300bps 12y ago

Thank you for the data, but it brings up a big question for me. How do they boil down "Global Temperature" to a single number from 1880 to 2014? In 1880 there were only 38 states and the Statue of Liberty hadn't been delivered yet for 5 years. Today they have temperature sensors in Antarctica, the North Pole, Alaska, Utah, the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the middle of the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc. Did they have these same sensors in 1880? In 1900? In 1920? Where is the data that shows the constituents of the "one true number" that claims to stretch over a period of 134 years?

ch4s3 12y ago
You know the phrase "The sun never sets on British soil"? Well that dates to the 18th Century, and they we measuring temperature everywhere they were. True, expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic were later, but they also recorded temperature. So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good.
- 300bps 12y ago
  So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good. Do you have any evidence of this claim? Specifically, do you know where I can find the formula used to calculate the global temperature and the constituent temperature readings, locations and time/dates? Common sense says that such readings would be spotty at best and also that they would be incomparable between 1880 and 2014 but since they are comparing them I'm very curious of their methodology. EDIT OK I found what claims to be the source code of the software that massages the numbers here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ EDIT2 OK I found the underlying data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ It's exactly what I thought. Hardly any of the stations go back to 1880 and the ones that do are unbelievably spotty with sometimes two years or more of missing data. Oh and they're apparently not even measurements - they're "reconstructions". And apparently they re-adjust these reconstructions all the time. (see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html#ixzz27YZRxqIW http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_rul...) The environment would be much better off if we stopped pretending we know things we don't and just agree that it is stupid to squander a finite resource like fossil fuels and start conserving it.