Comments on: 3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade

By: DIE STÖRTASTE » Klimawandel - mal wieder

DIE STÖRTASTE » Klimawandel - mal wieder — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:47:16 +0000

[...] Gehöre ja zu dem Volk, das der Klimahysterie skeptisch gegenübersteht. Ich weiß nicht, ob der Klimawandel wirklich zum Großteil durch den Menschen verursacht wird. Bin mir noch nicht mal mehr sicher, ob er überhaut stattfindet. Immerhin ist’s seit zehn Jahren nicht mehr wärmer geworden. [...]

By: Billiam

Billiam — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:01:31 +0000

When using rolling averages, example, 30 year trend, one must place it in the center of the time period, i.e. about 1993 for 30 year average ending 2008. Using the 30 year trendline to represent the present rate of change is flat wrong.

By: Collapse « The Shires

Collapse « The Shires — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:36:09 +0000

[...] in as an aside the claim that the earth has actually cooled over the last decade anyway (which might be true). I ended up trying to explain, without being overly antagonistic, that most environmentalist [...]

By: US govt starts to accept climate change

US govt starts to accept climate change — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:19:20 +0000

[...] because temperatures have been flat if not cooler since 1998, the hottest year on record. 3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade � Watts Up With That? You want to know by far the biggest deciding factor in the Earth’s climate? I’ll give you a hint, [...]

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 06:22:27 +0000

I wonder if someone can check if the HadCRUT3 calculation has changed. I see on their website they comment:

“We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading”.

By: David

David — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:33:34 +0000

This is really interesting — the four modelled results and the numerous interpretations, exceptions, etc. I wish the conversations had continued beyond May.

Frankly, I’ve been a skeptic from the day I saw the Time magazine cover for “Earth, Planet of the Year”.

Twenty years have proven the skeptics correct and incorrect. Global warming is not really about climate change, and it’s not about environmentalism. It’s about social experimentation; about creating the perception of a crisis and emplacing conditions and restrictions on who loses and who receives it, by writ of law. It’s the same game that man has played throughout our just-above-the-monkeys existence.

Hopefully, the data you observe and the models you build will give us a much clearer picture of what the futures holds. God speed.

By: E o tempo para amanhã… @ hugosantos.eu

E o tempo para amanhã… @ hugosantos.eu — Mon, 05 May 2008 08:42:20 +0000

[...] decréscimo acentuado da temperatura global. Algumas fontes de medições climatéricas indicam que nos últimos 10 anos a temperatura global se manteve estatisticamente a mesma. O artigo da Nature, apesar de se basear em novas medições e numa nova estratégia de fazer as [...]

By: Carbon Dioxide Levels 'Off the Chart' - The Global Warming Skeptics Forum

Carbon Dioxide Levels 'Off the Chart' - The Global Warming Skeptics Forum — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:59:39 +0000

[...] reference the temperature records over the last 10 years from 4 different metrics presented over at Anthony Watt’s blog. Yes, it’s only a 10 year period, but I fail to see any noticeable short-term direct relationship [...]

By: Accounting For ENSO: Cochrane Orcutt | The Blackboard

Accounting For ENSO: Cochrane Orcutt | The Blackboard — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:21:54 +0000

[...] Data for first analysis: Blog post at Watt’s and text [...]

By: mike

mike — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:30:16 +0000

Anthony,
Mine was the comment you deleted. My comment was simply that the data that you link contains 121 months, so it is not a true 10 year analysis. To get 120 months you would need to drop either Jan98 or Jan08 from your analysis. The other 119 months would be the same under either scenario, but you would get different outcomes. For instance, the average monthly anomaly over jan98 to dec07 in the UAH data is .2458333 and from Feb98 to Jan 08, the average of all 120 anomalies is .24016667. While those numbers look small, that’s a change of over 2% by just dropping one number and adding another.

My point is first, you’re looking at 121 months, not 120, and second if changing1 number has that large an influence, I think your time frame is too short to have any meaning.

Lastly, I want to add I’m not a stat guy, so I don’t even know if the average of the anomalies has any significance anyway. I just used it to get a quick and dirty look at the impact of which set of data you use.

REPLY: thanks for reposting.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:47:38 +0000

Lee said:
“arctic ice as of today is still almost a half million km2 below 1978-2000 mean for this date.”

Correct. And the Antarctic sea ice extent is a full million square km ABOVE the 1979-2000 average, for this date.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

If either is relevant, both must be. The worldwide total anomaly is currently positive, not negative.

By: wattsupwiththat

wattsupwiththat — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:21:19 +0000

NOTE –

Somebody just made a comment here that I accidentally deleted. The delete and edit words links are right next to each other on the comment form, I went to hit edit, to add a reply, but missed the target, and unfortunately WP has no “are you sure” or recovery options for a deleted comment.

The comment was about the number of months in the 10 year trend. Whomever that was, feel free to repost. My sincere apology for the trouble.

By: Bob Tisdale

Bob Tisdale — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:14:36 +0000

Anthony: Here’s a link to “El Nino Factor III”–probably the last of the series.

It compares and illustrates the correlations of NINO3.4 data to TSI (Can’t Miss It!) and to standardized global temperature. It also illustrates the correlations of global temperature to the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) and to the Global SST ENSO Index. It’s almost twice as long as the first two, but I cover more topics.

I’ll retract the comment I made earlier on this thread about it being only a coincidence. The cumulative effect is sensitive to the base period of the raw data.

If I do another one, it’ll be an attempt to illustrate what’s happening and why the Running Total works. Other than that, I’ve run out of El Nino indices to play with.

If you’d like, I can email a copy of the spreadsheet so you can play with the data. Please advise.

Regards

By: To Tell the Truth: Will the Real Global Average Temperature Trend Please Rise? Part1 « Watts Up With That?

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:04:46 +0000

[...] period to try to discern a trend in global average temperature, there is no a priori reason why a period of 10 years could not yield meaningful insights. It all depends on the “skill” with which we look at the [...]

By: A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming « Watts Up With That?

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:41:45 +0000

[...] statistically significant warming 11 03 2008 Yesterday, in response to the thread on “3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade” I got a short note from MIT’s Richard Lindzen along with a graph. I asked if I could [...]