Where's the evidence of 15 years of temperature stagnation?

[JoeNormal]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

 

[Kosh]

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Before the Little Ice Age, research studies have shown that there were two major warming periods; the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Holocene Optimum when it was 1.5 to nearly 3 degrees C warmer than it is today. The Vikings colonized Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum when they could actually grow crops on Greenland. By the 1400s Greenland had become so cold that these colonies had to be abandoned.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Go!

 

[JoeNormal]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Go!

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

 

[Kosh]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth

 

[JoeNormal]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth

Thanks for your mature presentation of this information. It gives me hope that all of the skeptics out there aren't low grade morons like CrusaderFrank.

 

[Kosh]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4]George Carlin on Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Study: Smelling farts is good for your health - The Week

 

[MACAULAY]

The debate on Global Warming is OVER.

Its getting Colder.

Now, Climate Change is a different matter. The Loons have got that one right. The Weather is changing.

Its always changing. Sometimes its cold...sometimes its hot.

Us Heartland folks do not think we needed a bunch of New England Pinheads, and Berkeley Homosexuals to tell us that.

As for Global Warming, the forecast is not good for you Loons in New England, New York and Chicago. The word is:

Winter is Coming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Go!

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

Do you not understand your theory?

Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs

 

[westwall]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Go!

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

I've never heard of any physical experiment that couldn't be performed in a lab. None.
You're just simply wrong. As are ALL the CAGW faithful...

 

[Freewill]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Without the trend line, and I am not sure how they trend it, it is not obvious that the temperature has increased or decreased that just isn't true. 2000 and 2001 were obviously the real outliers on the chart they raise the slope of the line. Do a run from 2002 to 2014 and look at the trend a straight line. So OK there was slight warming, with 2001 and 2000 thrown in but since 2002 there certainly has not been any warming or cooling. I think the fact that the numbers are better, been taken longer and the fudged factors have been in place for 10 or so years has level out the temperature data. (don't forget to change both dates or you get the same trend.)

 

[JoeNormal]

Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Go!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

Do you not understand your theory?

Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs

The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.

 

[Skylar]

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

'In history' generally implies recorded history.

 

[Kosh]

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

Do you not understand your theory?

Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs

The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

 

[Skylar]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Without the trend line, and I am not sure how they trend it, it is not obvious that the temperature has increased or decreased that just isn't true. 2000 and 2001 were obviously the real outliers on the chart they raise the slope of the line. Do a run from 2002 to 2014 and look at the trend a straight line. So OK there was slight warming, with 2001 and 2000 thrown in but since 2002 there certainly has not been any warming or cooling. I think the fact that the numbers are better, been taken longer and the fudged factors have been in place for 10 or so years has level out the temperature data. (don't forget to change both dates or you get the same trend.)

2001 wasn't an outlier. In fact, its the exact same temperatures as 2003, which you insist we include. Nor was 2000 an outlier. As we saw something similar in 2004 and 2008, both of which you insist we include. You're omitting them 'just because'.

And if the question is 'has the temperature gone up in the last 15 years', I'd go back 15 years and check. And we have an ascending trendline. Even if we inexplicably lop off 2000 and 2001 'just because', we still have an ascending trendline.

Look at them in 5 year chunks and it gets even more stark. From 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the average was 0.54. For 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the average is 0.67. A nearly 25% increase in land and sea temperature anomalies. But the temperature is flat, huh?

Go back to say, 1990, and it gets even more stark. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, the average is 0.35. That's an astonishing 91% increase in land and sea anomalies.

Go back to 1980, and wow. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.....and the average anomoly is 0.26. With our last 5 year average about 2 and half times higher.

There's a reason why 97% of publishing earth scientists are on one side of this issue; the evidence is pretty damn clear.

Oh, and if you hear a 'skeptic' tell you that our temperature has been flat since 1998, what they *actually* mean is that we had a temperature spike in 1998, going from .035 in 1995 to 0.39 in 1996 to 0.43 in 1997, to a whopping 0.67 in 1998, back down to a 0.41 in 1999.

1998 was an outlier. And a pretty stark one. It was the largest anomoly we'd ever recorded. Here's the scary part:

The temperature has increased so much, that our 5 year AVERAGE from 2010 to 2014 is now at almost exactly at the same place now the 'largest anomoly ever recorded' in 1998. 0.72 in 2010, 0.54 in 2011, 0.68 in 2012, 0.66 in 2013 and 0.74 so far in 2014.

Which the 'skeptics' know perfectly well. But really hope you don't.

 

[Freewill]

In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.

So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?

Without the trend line, and I am not sure how they trend it, it is not obvious that the temperature has increased or decreased that just isn't true. 2000 and 2001 were obviously the real outliers on the chart they raise the slope of the line. Do a run from 2002 to 2014 and look at the trend a straight line. So OK there was slight warming, with 2001 and 2000 thrown in but since 2002 there certainly has not been any warming or cooling. I think the fact that the numbers are better, been taken longer and the fudged factors have been in place for 10 or so years has level out the temperature data. (don't forget to change both dates or you get the same trend.)

2001 wasn't an outlier. In fact, its the exact same temperatures as 2003, which you insist we include. Nor was 2000 an outlier. As we saw something similar in 2004 and 2008, both of which you insist we include. You're omitting them 'just because'.

And if the question is 'has the temperature gone up in the last 15 years', I'd go back 15 years and check. And we have an ascending trendline. Even if we inexplicably lop off 2000 and 2001 'just because', we still have an ascending trendline.

Look at them in 5 year chunks and it gets even more stark. From 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the average was 0.54. For 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the average is 0.67. A nearly 25% increase in land and sea temperature anomalies. But the temperature is flat, huh?

Go back to say, 1990, and it gets even more stark. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, the average is 0.35. That's an astonishing 91% increase in land and sea anomalies.

Go back to 1980, and wow. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.....and the average anomoly is 0.26. With our last 5 year average about 2 and half times higher.

There's a reason why 97% of publishing earth scientists are on one side of this issue; the evidence is pretty damn clear.

Oh, and if you hear a 'skeptic' tell you that our temperature has been flat since 1998, what they *actually* mean is that we had a temperature spike in 1998, going from .035 in 1995 to 0.39 in 1996 to 0.43 in 1997, to a whopping 0.67 in 1998, back down to a 0.41 in 1999.

1998 was an outlier. And a pretty stark one. It was the largest anomoly we'd ever recorded. Here's the scary part:

The temperature has increased so much, that our 5 year AVERAGE from 2010 to 2014 is now at almost exactly at the same place now the 'largest anomoly ever recorded' in 1998. 0.72 in 2010, 0.54 in 2011, 0.68 in 2012, 0.66 in 2013 and 0.74 so far in 2014.

Which the 'skeptics' know perfectly well. But really hope you don't.

I really wonder if we are looking at the same things. Here is a 12 month, global, land and sea data from the site:


YearAnomalyRank
1998 0.63°C 14
1999 0.55°C 5
2000 0.46°C 2
2001 0.44°C 1
2002 0.61°C 12
2003 0.58°C 8
2004 0.63°C 14
2005 0.58°C 9
2006 0.61°C 12
2007 0.66°C 16
2008 0.49°C 3
2009 0.56°C 6
2010 0.67°C 17
2011 0.57°C 7
2012 0.54°C 4
2013 0.60°C 10
2014 0.65°C 15

Your claim: 1998 was an outlier. And a pretty stark one. It was the largest anomoly we'd ever recorded. Here's the scary part:

Clearly it is not an outlier, according to the NOAA data. Higher then most yes, outlier no. The outliers are 2000 and 2001 which can be seen clearly. Every other, save one, year falls within the 50s and 60s except those two. If you wish to claim 1998 as an outlier then using the NOAA data 2014, 2010 2007 and 2004 were even more of outliers or the same as 1998. Unless you have data from somewhere else.

Your claim: The temperature has increased so much, that our 5 year AVERAGE from 2010 to 2014 is now at almost exactly at the same place now the 'largest anomoly ever recorded' in 1998. 0.72 in 2010, 0.54 in 2011, 0.68 in 2012, 0.66 in 2013 and 0.74 so far in 2014.

YearAnomalyRank
2010 0.67°C 5
2011 0.57°C 2
2012 0.54°C 1
2013 0.60°C 3
2014 0.65°C 4

Well look at that 2014 .02 cooler then 2010, interesting. I am thinking you must be looking at the US numbers or something else. Do not know. The numbers I provide are this:

Timescale: 12-Month Latitude Band: Global Surface: Land and Ocean

I will say it once more, the numbers do indicate slight warming depending on the time frame, to that there is no doubt. Since 2002 global temperatures have flat lined yet CO2 concentrations continue up.

As I said, I think the flat lining has more to do with how the data is now taken and analyzed then anything it tells us about the climate.

 

[Freewill]

OMG I went back and did the following plot:

Parameter: Average Temperature

Time Scale: 12-Month

Start Year: 1998

State/Region: Contiguous U.S. Climate Division/City: All 48 States

Guess what it showed? -.33 oF/ decade.

I am not making this up it is for all of you to see.

 

[Skylar]

And exactly as I predicted, you picked 1998 as your baseline. The all time highest temperature anomaly when it occurred as your 135 year baseline. You really don't want us seeing the years before 1998, do you?

Clearly it is not an outlier, according to the NOAA data. Higher then most yes, outlier no.

Not an outlier? It was the highest temperature anomoly ever recorded in history of land and sea measurements. It remained the highest until 2010. It is still the second highest annual average ever recorded. But its 'not an outlier'.

Lets see how your claim holds up when we *don't* use 1998 as our baseline:

Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January-December
Units: Degrees Celsius
Year,Value
1990,0.40
1991,0.38
1992,0.24
1993,0.27
1994,0.33
1995,0.45
1996,0.32
1997,0.52
1998,0.64
1999,0.46
2000,0.43
2001,0.55
2002,0.61
2003,0.62
2004,0.58
2005,0.65
2006,0.60
2007,0.59
2008,0.51
2009,0.60
2010,0.66
2011,0.53
2012,0.58
2013,0.62

And there's your outlier. A sudden peak that was unprecedented in our entire history of land and sea measurements. And still remains the 2nd highest annual temperature anomaly in the entire 135 year history of land and sea measurements.

Which you've inexplicably chosen as your baseline. That's profoundly dishonest. No one actually trying to figure out whats happening would choose an outlier as their baseline. All of which you already know.

Your entire argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. You know 1998 is an enormous outlier. But you really hope your audience doesn't. You hope that they don't ask why you picked 1998 out of all the years in the last 135 to start all your measurements. And you hope they don't conduct some average temperature anomoly calculations. Because if they do any of those things, your entire argument collapses.

Lets do those averages, shall we?

Going 2 years before and 2 years after 1998, we get an 5 average temperature anomaly of 0.47. Our current 5 year average temperature anomaly (using annual averages) is 0.60.

A 27.6% increase. But the temperature is flat, huh?

C'mon dude. You might be able to sell your 'I just happened to pick an enormous outlier as my baseline' to someone who doesn't have an even passing acquaintance with the data. But anyone who does will see through your nonsense is a heartbeat.

Which is why you're on one side of the issue.....and 97% of publishing earth scientists are on the other.

Worse, you've been trying to push the idea of global *cooling*. That our temperatures are going down. When anyone who takes even a glance at the data above can see you're completely wrong. You've already seen the data. So you know you're wrong. You're intentionally pitching a narrative that you know is factually inaccurate.

And hoping no one checks. Um, I checked. And your narrative falls to pieces.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.

Do you not understand your theory?

Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs

The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.

but you can't test for the actual effects a 120PPM increase has on temperature or pH because.....?

Hmmm?

Anything?