Posted on 06/23/2008 12:24:05 AM PDT by spandau-guard
That's not really a fair statement. I expect that the next year with a big El Nino will set a new global temperature record because the enhancement of warm temperatures caused by El Nino will take place "on top of" the underlying warming trend. If there was any reason to think there was a real significant cooling trend, I couldn't state my prediction with confidence.
The global temperatures of 2005 were the best evidence of global warming that the global temperature record can provide. However, the anomalous nature of 1998 has to be understood to put the 2005 temperatures in context. If 1998 is not properly seen as anomalous, then what the 2005 temperatures signify will not be perceived. (And there are a lot of people for which that's happening.)
Ah, the totalitarian left at it's finest. If you speak your ideas which are different from the left's, they'll gladly throw you in jail or worse.
That is one of the better lines I've seen on the old FR in a good while.
Ok, so we'll say 0.1 degrees or greater (should be 0.173 per decade but I'll spot you the 0.7) above 1998 using lower troposphere satellite measurements (e.g. http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends) which will reflect both the warming trend and the El Nino without the need for murky adjustments.
Thanks for posting the chart. Cogitator is going to bet me that the next El Nino will exceed 1998 by 0.1 degrees or roughly 0.9 on your chart. Ok, well, he hasn’t quite agreed to that yet. He may try to substitute GISS for satellite measurements; not acceptable. He may weasel a little on the size of the El Nino; fair enough, I’ll give him an even 0.8
It's an official new record if it's 0.05 deg. C* higher in all three surface temperature records: NOAA, Hadley Centre UK, and GISS.
* Exceeds current error bars.
Here's the chart for 2005 from NOAA. You can see the size of the error bars.
Here's what NOAA says about 2005, by the way:
"The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998. (below right)."
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html
Question for the skeptics in general (not necessarily palmer): If there's been a decade-long cooling trend since 1998, how could 2005 have been as warm as 1998?
You beg the question of why, if global warming is such an unstoppable juggernaut of doom, 2007 was significantly cooler.
Your phony chart is still the one that leaves out the siberian data without correction. Pure propaganda, as is to be expected from socialists.
I would have concerns about this too, but this AGW crap is such a slam dunk to defeat the jury would have to be heavily bribed to go against the facts that are in existence.....
More likely we will see the climate crisis people swinging from the lampposts if they manage to crash the Economies of the West. People who are cold, hungry and poor get mighty testy.....
Interannual variability (typified by El Nino and La Nina). No one expects a linear march toward increasing warmth in a complex climate system.
One, it's not my chart. Two, which chart are you talking about? Three, please explain what you mean about "leaving out the Siberian data without correction", preferably with a reference.
What I meant was: when the phrase "new global temperature record" is used, it isn't about the 28 year satellite temperature record; it's about the ~130 year (too lazy to search out the exact "official" length) surface instrumental record. Yes, I know there are flaws -- and corrections. Same goes for the MSU TLT. (Or do you think Wentz and Co. have it all figured out now?)
If you want the ENSO somewhat smoothed out but at the cost of opaque and questionable adjustments, go ahead and use your data. We'll see where we are in five years (presuming an El Nino will happen by then).
I expect the signal of a normal El Nino to rise well above the noise. The one thing of interest is that the PDO shift could mean that there won't be an El Nino over the next five years -- so either there will be a new global temperature record without one, or (as I expect, with no other support for that expectation other than "that's how nature works") the Pacific will still manage to foster an El Nino.
or feed him to the cannibals:
Ted Turner: Global Warming Will Cause Mass Cannibalism
Interviewed Tuesday for Charlie Rose’s PBS show, CNN founder Ted Turner argued that inaction on global warming “will be catastrophic” and those who don’t die “will be cannibals.”
Looking at that chart and then remembering that in 1970 there was a full-court press on to rid the air of pollutants that contyinues with great success to this very time.
Also if one looks at the change up to 1940 when the flurry of activity spurred by WWII put the great industrial engine into overdrive and spewed out aersol pollutants night and day for years afterward we notice that the temps dropped up to about 1980 when the effects of pollution control also became apparent on the atmosphere.
Perhaps there is a greater influence on the cooling/warming cycles we see caused by our attempts to control one bad thing and creating another “bad thing.”
Would be interesting to see how much this plays in the end game.
Didn’t know you had taken up gambling.
Didn’t know you had taken up gambling.
palmer was the one talking about a bet. If I was really to put money on it, there'd have to be more conditions. A major volcanic eruption would have the potential to change things for a few years.
True and true. But the LT with its corrections depicts the 0.17C / decade trend plus ENSO. The signal of a normal El Nino will rise well above the noise (if you are correct that trend will continue. Why would you think the warming trend would not show up in LT but only in the surface measurements? If there is no El Nino within five years I will call it a tie except if we have a record without El Nino.
I think it will show up, but the "record" is stated in terms of the surface measurements. And there isn't a real tight linkage between the surface and LT measurements. They can diverge.
If there is no El Nino within five years I will call it a tie except if we have a record without El Nino.
No problem. The next five years will be interesting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.