Regardless of how you want to fudge the data, Jimmy, the fact is that the warmest year on record was 1998. And we have also have been in a cooling spell for about five years. Even the more ardent global warmingests admit that.
Finally, to follow up on what Whistler said, according to the climate models, the warming period from 1850-1980 occurred naturally, yet much of the ice loss was from that period. It is is true that he ice loss substantially accelerated around 1980, so if we blame the warming from circa 1980 to 2000 entirely on humans, then we clearly are contributing to the circumstance (not quite willing to call it a “problem” since this sort of thing happens naturally too).
Carrick - 02:05pm on 05/13/2008
Carrick, I didn’t fudge any data. The point is, some asshole edited the audio of the interview with Gore to change the meaning of what he said, and this whole thing is a dishonest smear job.
Yes, by some measurements 1998 was the warmest year on record, but as you are well aware, this was due to an unusually strong el nino event that year. However, the 5-year moving average of annual global surface temperature has moved upward dramatically since 1998.
jimmy - 07:05pm on 05/13/2008
including the chicklets but not the eraser.
The Whistler - 07:05pm on 05/13/2008
Jimmy: the fudging is in what amounts to a post-hoc decision on how to manipulate the data to get the desired effect.
The other fudge is looking at 1850-200x instead of 1980-200x. Generally it’s accepted that humans had an insignificant effect on global mean temperaure until roughly 1980.
What’s magical about 5 years? Nothing. There’s an annual (1-year) forcing and an 11-year (solar cycle) forcing. If you average to remove the 1-year, then you need a two-year window, not 5. The only thing 5 does is produce a bigger end-effect that obscures a very real downturn in temperature, or at least slow-down if one focusses on GISS.
Which raises the question of why you are focusing on the temperature series, GISS, which shows the most dramatic temperature rise? This given that many of the algorithms they use are not publicly released. Without peaking at the results, the satellite data really should be the best way to go in terms of accessing global mean temperature; you don’t have the issues with a sparse array with measurements being performed in almost an uncontrolled fashion (seen Andrew Watt’s site if you want to see what I mean by that).
Taking your beloved 5-year average, the Earth has warmed by 0.55 C since 1980 according to GISS, by about 0.45 C according to Hadcrut but by a mere 0.2C according to VORTEX (satellite) measurements. Given that the satellite measure in general are more robust than surface-based measures this doesn’t show the red flag the global warming crowd are looking for does it?
Regardless of how you want to fudge the data, Jimmy, the fact is that the warmest year on record was 1998. And we have also have been in a cooling spell for about five years. Even the more ardent global warmingests admit that.
Finally, to follow up on what Whistler said, according to the climate models, the warming period from 1850-1980 occurred naturally, yet much of the ice loss was from that period. It is is true that he ice loss substantially accelerated around 1980, so if we blame the warming from circa 1980 to 2000 entirely on humans, then we clearly are contributing to the circumstance (not quite willing to call it a “problem” since this sort of thing happens naturally too).
Carrick, I didn’t fudge any data. The point is, some asshole edited the audio of the interview with Gore to change the meaning of what he said, and this whole thing is a dishonest smear job.
Yes, by some measurements 1998 was the warmest year on record, but as you are well aware, this was due to an unusually strong el nino event that year. However, the 5-year moving average of annual global surface temperature has moved upward dramatically since 1998.
including the chicklets but not the eraser.
Jimmy: the fudging is in what amounts to a post-hoc decision on how to manipulate the data to get the desired effect.
The other fudge is looking at 1850-200x instead of 1980-200x. Generally it’s accepted that humans had an insignificant effect on global mean temperaure until roughly 1980.
What’s magical about 5 years? Nothing. There’s an annual (1-year) forcing and an 11-year (solar cycle) forcing. If you average to remove the 1-year, then you need a two-year window, not 5. The only thing 5 does is produce a bigger end-effect that obscures a very real downturn in temperature, or at least slow-down if one focusses on GISS.
Which raises the question of why you are focusing on the temperature series, GISS, which shows the most dramatic temperature rise? This given that many of the algorithms they use are not publicly released. Without peaking at the results, the satellite data really should be the best way to go in terms of accessing global mean temperature; you don’t have the issues with a sparse array with measurements being performed in almost an uncontrolled fashion (seen Andrew Watt’s site if you want to see what I mean by that).
Taking your beloved 5-year average, the Earth has warmed by 0.55 C since 1980 according to GISS, by about 0.45 C according to Hadcrut but by a mere 0.2C according to VORTEX (satellite) measurements. Given that the satellite measure in general are more robust than surface-based measures this doesn’t show the red flag the global warming crowd are looking for does it?