Seven Years of Global Temperature Data
 

The October 2022 UAH (Univ of Alabama at Huntsville) Satellite DATA is now in and the 7-year trend is still in a slight downward trend. Even though this year (so far) is a tad warmer than last year, the global DATA trend for the last 7 years shows slight cooling. The NOAA global surface temperature DATA reflects a similar slight cooling trend. Plus, November brings early snows ... Mammoth ski season to open early with fresh snow - Los Angeles Times

Is there a link to the source of this graph?

Here is the source data ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

And here is the monthly UAH plot of this data ... Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Here is the non cherry picked chart.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

I already provided the Roy Spencer graph source -- nothing to hide here. Besides, there is no cherry-picking. I simply plotted all January through October temperature data from 2015 to 2022. Where is the cherry picking? When the November data comes in, I will plot that data -- and then subsequently for the December data ... a very simple straight forward process. And over the last 8 years of data, it shows a 7-year slight cooling trend.

7 years is not a reasonable length of time for a trend. Cherry picking is certainly appropriate here. Have you learned what a logarithm is?

Anyone call claim what is good or not good, but the cooling trend began after 2015, which is why I plotted that data -- good or bad -- this data shows a cooling trend. The question is ... how long with this continue? Another question is ... why the cooling trend while CO2 continues its steady and steep upward slope?

Again, 7 years is not a trend. If you want to consider 40 years then perhaps it is worth a look. So, please stop, you are embarrassing yourself. How are you doing on learning what a logarithm is?

Thanks

The cooling trend started with solar cycle 24 and continues today. ..Inside a 300 year warming trend.

I like that!

Attachment 95686

54 Great Sources for Climate Change News | Online Public Health

There are many sources out there about global warming.

During the Little Ice Age there were even more sources explaining why witches caused extreme weather and fast growing glaciers -- and most sources were from government and church leaders.

Whether it gets warmer or colder, it's gonna happen whether man inhabits the earth or not.

What do witches have to do with global warming? The science is there. Persecuting witches was a widespread abuse of power and had little to do with facts.

Ditto -- and the best part is that CO2 helps make the earth greener and helps keep the earth comfortable for humans ... we are after all tropical life forms since we were born without fur. Man-made CO2 is helping to make our climate great again.

"Had little to do with facts" is exactly right -- just like today. The facts are so little that no one can identify how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year.

Why show only seven years? Seven seems like a strange number to choose. What would the graph look like if you showed 4 or 10 or 20 years?

It should show a good length of years.

Because that's when the cooling trend began -- and now we wait and see what happens next ...

You picked the starting point so as to show the desired trend? Isn't that just a bit dishonest?

BTW: The 4, 10, and 20 year charts all show a warming trend. Perhaps the cooling trend lasted only three years and now we are back in warming?

I picked the point at which slight global cooling started. This cooling is partially due to increasing incursions of polar outbreaks, accompanied by a cooling ENSO and PDO. This is why the hurricane trend has been decreasing for the past 2 years. Data also shows a weakening polar vortex, which is commonly indicative of more polar outbreaks to come -- at least in the near future.

But it wouldn't be the same with out us. 👀

Surely you've heard the phrase: "The Emperor has no clothes"?

You're embarrassing yourself.

Instead of worrying about meaningless logarithms, look up the word "trend" in the dictionary and learn what it means. You're surely not the arbiter of how long something must exist before it qualifies as a "trend".

More proof of global warming.

Fortunately, humans are helping to improve earth's climate by adding more CO2 to the air. It's odd that so many believe CO2 to be a satanic gas -- and yet no one even knows how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year. We all know exactly how much CO2 increased last year, or how much gasoline prices increased last year -- but not how much "man-made" CO2 increased earth's temperature. Think about that. Why is that not known? What is the news media hiding - besides the 7-year cooling trend? The answer is available through the use of a globally recognized equation which was created by the world's greatest scientists (including Einstein's contributions). This equation is publicly accessible via a computer program created by the US Government, which accurately describes (to the best of human knowledge) how CO2 and all other greenhouses gases affect our atmosphere. For those who don't know this equation or the program that runs it ... they will be discussed Nov 17 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor.

I'm sure it would be very interesting, but I will not be attending due to prior engagement. Enjoy!

And this information will also be presented on Nov 14 at 1PM at Bridgeport.

If you look at 5, 10 or100 year charts you are not looking at a true representation of what is taking place. Looking at 10,000, 100,000 year or greater duration charts to find out where we are in the climate cycle. Then you will see how little humans have on the changing climate.

Whatever you do, please do not confuse our U.S. climate czar with the fax’s.

so hermione is safe?

I am pretty sure I know a lot more about the science than you since I am a retired research meteorologist. There is considerable short term variation in temperature data. If you are interested in anthropogenic changes then you need to consider long time periods and also compute running means. The original dataset has over 40 years of data from passive radiometers and shows a clear warming trend in the troposphere. Cherry picking a small subset (about 1/6 of the data) from the original dataset is not sound, particularly when you pick a high point as your starting point in an attempt to try to disprove an idea supported by a large amount of peer reviewed, sound research. Sounds like you are another person who doesn’t know what a logarithm is.

Not exactly. We know we are in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. The concern is that additional anthropogenic warming on top of the interglacial warming will be an issue. The time scale of concern is primarily the next 100 years or so. Estimates put the anthropogenic warming at about 1C. The concerns are that it could be an additional several degrees by the end of the century. While that may not sound like a lot but that is a global change. The regional impacts would be large and could create political upheaval due to migrations away from those regions most impacted.

Might as well bring up mythology with dragons why stop at witches? I have concluded from the weather post discussions a visit to the Science & Weather Club would be a waste of my valuable time others may enjoy it.

All the scientific stuff is way above my pay grade, but it is obvious that there is a change. The bit I cannot get my head round is that it is man made.
80+ years ago when I was growing up in UK, the air quality was dire. Smog, smoke from coal fires, lead from car exhausts, it was a killer.
Now the air has never been cleaner, but the 'Greens' claim it is still our fault and conditions are getting worse! How?
That's what I find hard to even start to believe.

An article from today's BBC UK service.
The BBC are Climate change zealots.

What is climate change? A really simple guide - BBC News

Please pseudo-scientists, return to your armchairs and let us all listen to what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us - there is a significant and accelerating change in the climate and it is warming.

Where is this energy being stored? It’s in the oceans as you would expect if you think about it. One of the ways we see this is through the melting ice caps both at the polar regions and various countries with significant amounts of snow and ice.

The real question is how will this impact life? It could be positive or negative - that’s probably the real question once we accept the reality of the situation. Water levels are rising - is that a big problem? I’m not saying either way.

So we need to stop turning it into a political battle and start thinking of the consequences and what if anything we need or want to do about it. Eg if polar bears become extinct as a result do we really care given it doesn’t impact our daily lives? Or if there’s more hurricanes do I really care if I live in a part of the country that is rarely impacted by them? Life is certainly going to be different in many ways that we haven’t really thought through but that we now have little control over given the time it takes for this slow moving ship to change course.

:BigApplause:

Or, you could have said:

I pretty sure you can't fix stupid.

:icon_wink:

Smog, smoke was worse in most highly populated and industrialized area. Now it is cleaner. The reason it is cleaner is thanks to the efforts of the "Greens" to bring attention to the problem, source of the problem and force, through law, the polluters to clean up their act. The ones at fault are usually the ones who's battle cry is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

80 years ago, the only 'greens' around were brassicas, and gays were just happy people!
The UK Clean Air Act of 1956 was introduced as a response to the 1952 Great Smog.
Nothing to do with any Environmental groups.
It was a time when politicians actually worked to solve problems, and not just spend all their time raising money to get reelected.

What's your point? Are you a global warming/climate change scientist? If not, is your purpose for this thread to imply that legitimate scientists' analysis and predictions are incorrect? Next time indicate reason for posting. Otherwise, your thread is useless!











is your purpose for this tread to imply that scientist are incorrect in the analysis and predictions