Global ocean temperatures continue to fall.

from data from the National Climactic Data Center. ^ | 1/16/2007 | Dangus (Vanity)

[polymuser]

Boy meets iceage.
Boy loses iceage.
Boy gets iceage.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Where are the raw observations available so I may fit my own curve? Does anyone know?

I would caution anyone that is betting their life on temperature observations that there are many areas of the world’s oceans where it is difficult to find one surface temperature measurement (let alone a subsurface temperature ob) per year in a degree square of latitude and longitude. Also consider, if one is dealing with surface temperatures over land, how did they handle temperature observations in the mountains or in highlands. Many temperature values are reduced to 1000 millibars by an interpolation scheme. I believe that climatologists use a 5 degree square of latitude and longitude to determine global mean temperatures. This means that a temperature observed over the ocean is compared on the same chart with temperatures observed in the Rocky Mountains.

[cogitator]

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second Warmest Year (GISS)

2007 was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide (NOAA)

From the latter: "For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 1°F (0.6°C) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend."

Read my point #4 again (in my profile). 1998 was 0.2 C above the decadal trend of ~0.2 C warming per decade, because of the big El Nino. Put in usefully simple terms, it was a decade ahead of schedule. JUST NOW, right now, the globe, having generally warmed 0.2 C since 1998, is reaching the same temperature -- year after year -- as 1998.

[cogitator]

I’ll believe it when someone other than a quack actually has data showing it happening. But yes, if actual solar radiative output decreased, that would be such an extreme circumstance that would derail my prediction.

[jwalsh07]

[dangus]

Picking and choosing the most radical, alarmist, manipulated datasets again.

Look at this:

What do you see? I see a definite trend lasting through the 1990s... and then a halt. And, notice, I'm not arguing many of the perfectly valid skeptic's arguments.

Now, you actually cite this source: "2007 was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide (NOAA)" One look at the source shows that their dataset shows precisely the year-upon-year warming which was thoroughly debunked as an artifice of poor temperature monitoring.

In other words, even AFTER their data were shown to be in error, they continue citing their data, WITHOUT EVEN ADJUSTING FOR THEIR ERRORS.

[dangus]

>> I’ll believe it when someone other than a quack actually has data showing it happening. But yes, if actual solar radiative output decreased, that would be such an extreme circumstance that would derail my prediction. <<

And, of course, anyone who challenges the UN Magisterium is a heretic, and therefor a quack, and therefor you can confidently maintain the truth of your statement. It’s just your logic will remain valid for a smaller and smaller set of researchers.

[cogitator]

The data showing essentially no change since 2001 aren't enough to establish a trend one way or the other, but it sure is interesting to watch the jihadis squirm as each year goes by with data contrary to the "models."

One of the points of the post and the graph is that an 8-year time interval is not long enough to determine if there is actually a trend or not.

It may be your perception (or hope) that the "jihadis" (a distasteful insult, by the way, no matter who you aim it at) are "squirming", but it's not an accurate perception. Did you already forget what happened to the Arctic sea ice this summer? Or that Sweden has basically skipped winter so far? Either is just snippets of information in a comprehensive evaluation of what is happening -- yes, it also snowed in Baghdad and it's cold in Israel. And there's a La Nina cooling off the tropics, too.

Trends take time. Patience is a virtue.

[cogitator]

I see a definite trend lasting through the 1990s... and then a halt.

What do you see when you start in 1999?

One look at the source shows that their dataset shows precisely the year-upon-year warming which was thoroughly debunked as an artifice of poor temperature monitoring.

What reference accomplished this debunking?

NOAA is radical, alarmist, and manipulated? Oh.

GLOBAL HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK (GHCN) QUALITY CONTROL OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

Have a nice read.

[cogitator]

Take a look at post 65, too.

[cogitator]

I would caution anyone that is betting their life on temperature observations that there are many areas of the world’s oceans where it is difficult to find one surface temperature measurement (let alone a subsurface temperature ob) per year in a degree square of latitude and longitude.

Not any more. ARGO floats.

[montag813]

Despite all this we are likely to see a Democrat president who will destroy our national energy future on the basis of phony science.

John Edwards at the Las Vegas debate said he would block the construction of any new coal plant--regardless of how "clean"--if there is no working method to "sequester the carbon underground". These people are certifiably insane.

[colorado tanker]

The reason I use the term "jihadi" is the because the UN and Goreans want to decapitate the economy and offer it as a sacrifice in the hope it will somehow change the climate. And even if it could, which I very much doubt, the projected benefits are very modest in comparison to the enormous costs.

We are in a long term warming trend that has been going on for thousands of years and will continue until until the next interglacial maximum, when the cooling will begin. The data show CO2 has been a lagging, not a leading indicator in that trend. When they produce a model that can duplicate this hundreds of thousands of years old pattern and make their current projections work in that model, I'll take them seriously.

That said, there are many minor fluctuations up and down in that long term cycle. I'm intrigued by the possibility that the stagnant temps the last seven years may be the precursor to a Little Ice Age type event. We're about due. That would really get the Goreans' panties in a wad.

[cogitator]

The reason I use the term "jihadi" is the because the UN and Goreans want to decapitate the economy and offer it as a sacrifice in the hope it will somehow change the climate. And even if it could, which I very much doubt, the projected benefits are very modest in comparison to the enormous costs.

You should read Harold Myerson's column in the Washington Post today about how to address the possible recession. You need to read it in context; an excerpt won't capture his reasoning.

We are in a long term warming trend that has been going on for thousands of years and will continue until until the next interglacial maximum, when the cooling will begin. The data show CO2 has been a lagging, not a leading indicator in that trend. When they produce a model that can duplicate this hundreds of thousands of years old pattern and make their current projections work in that model, I'll take them seriously.

Regarding the "lag, not lead", read my profile, point #5. You're incorrect about the warming trend; the Holocene has been a very stable climate, compared to previous interglacials. Increasing atmospheric CO2 has the potential to impose a warming trend during a warm stable interglacial. Regarding the models, paleoclimate models have confirmed that CO2 is the major determinant of past climate states, but differences in the Earth system occurring over geological time (continental movement) mean that you can't use the same type of models to address present-day climate.

I'm intrigued by the possibility that the stagnant temps the last seven years may be the precursor to a Little Ice Age type event. We're about due. That would really get the Goreans' panties in a wad.

Yeah, it would. It's an unlikely possibility. It's pretty clear that the LIA was related to the level of solar activity, indicated by the Maunder sunspot minimum (and the earlier Sporer minimum). But, "conservatively", the LIA was 1600 to the late 1800s, with the lowest temps around 1650, 1770, and the early 1800s (got that from Wikipedia). Wikipedia also says that some climatic indicators mark the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the start of the LIA as far back as 1250. So it could be 25 years before anything noticeable happens if solar activity declines, 50-200 years before a new minima. And, speaking from the knowledge I possess, increasing atmospheric CO2 could provide an opposing effect.

Wish I could live 200 years to see what happens.

[TigersEye]

They soak up the B.S. at realclimate and other Soros backed sites.

Don't forget the History Hysteria Channel.

[colorado tanker]

You're incorrect about the warming trend; the Holocene has been a very stable climate

So, you deny the ice core data?

It's pretty clear that the LIA was related to the level of solar activity, indicated by the Maunder sunspot minimum (and the earlier Sporer minimum).

You do realize there have been several cycles of these events and their warm counterparts, stretching back into ancient recorded history? You may well be correct sunspot activity causes them, but they've been cyclical and can't simply be dismissed.

You're forcing data and science to fit your predetermined conclusion.

And nobody has ever adequately answered Lomborg. Unlike me, he accepts anthropogenic warming, but conclusively shows that by IPCC's own projections, there will be very little change in temperature for enormous cost.

[TigersEye]

Trends take time. Patience is a virtue.

Unfortunately politicians, enviro-wackos and the MSM are planted firmly on the Panic Button demanding immediate action to reverse AGW.

[Perchant]

I was reading your propaganda...er...profile, and I found it interesting that you are instructing people that SO2 was a cooling forcer on Earth 60 years ago. The reason I find that interesting is that I’m reading lately about how climate scientists are now claiming that SO2 is a greenhouse gas that was responsible for warming on Mars a few billion years ago, now that they have concluded that Mars isn’t carbonate and couldn’t have had a CO2 atmosphere during its warm period.

[been_lurking]

0.2 C

What is the margin of error for these "average global" temperature readings?

What was the margin of error for these "average global" temperature readings 10 years ago?

What was the margin of error for these "average global" temperature readings 100 years ago? Were they even able to calculate and "average global" temperature 100 years ago?

How can polar ice cap borings be accurately extrapolated to "average global" temperatures? Wouldn't they reflect only local temperatures at the pole?

Too much of the "science" is still nothing but flawed computer models and sloppy statistics.

I'm still a skeptic.

[Balding_Eagle]

Casey is a quack?

That’s a serious guestion from me, as I don’t know.