Global Warming Graphs?

Question

Besides the fact that the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" has been proven to be a complete fraud, and was not even based on real temperature readings, (it was based on tree ring data in one forest in one small part of the US) has anyone actually looked at these graphs closely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

1932 warmer than 1934

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lrg.gif

1934 cooler than 1931 but warmer than 1932

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

1934 cooler than 1931 or 1932

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

1934 is only warmer than 1930. All after are warmer.

These graphs not only contradict the recent NASA revelation that 1934 was the hottest year on record, they contradict each other!!

Why is the artic ice a "Global" indicator, but the antartic ice is only a "Local" phenomenon?

Where is the science now?http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

All these graphs claim to be global temerature averages, not local averages. If they are using the same data, they should match. The only thing that matches is the trend. So what? If I photoshop a picture of a rose growing on Mt. McKinley, does that fake photo also offer proof of Global Warming?

If the "Global" graphs do not match each other, it means that the data, or the results, ARE FAKED! Did you know that children with large feet are smarter than children with small feet? I can give you a graph that proves it! Does that make it real? I can even quote the study that shows it. Does that make it real? No. The facts have to add up under all scrutiny or they are junk.

Just remember, Alar is bad for you too. I have the original study that proves it.

Answer 1

Global warming is a very selective science. Data that contradicts the status quo is rejected using some scientific mumbo-jumbo.

In the end "scientist" get the data that supports their original hypothesis.

Answer 2

1. The "hockey stick" graph is not only good science, its conclusions have been broadly endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, and its results have been replicated nearly a dozen times by climatologists from all over the world.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/pictures/paleoclimate1.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stickquot/

You're correct that the graph was based on proxy indicators (as it must, since there were no thermometers in 1500). But those indicators were not from just one part of North America, they were from all over the world.

2. Of the four graphs you link, numbers 1, 3, and 4 are all identical except for the scale of axes and graphing mode (bar vs. line). All draw their data from the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, specifically the HADCRUT3 dataset. The only one that's different is graph 2, which takes its data from the NASA/GISS dataset. The global data from NASA/GISS and Hadley differ in small details but are broadly in agreement regarding long-term trends.

The right side of graph 2 is for 48 states only, and is not global. Both arctic and antarctic ice are local phenomena, though both have global implications.

3. Orson Scott Card is a science fiction writer known for his right-wing political views. He is not a climatologist and not a statistician. Wake me up when you find some peer-reviewed science.

If you can.

Which I doubt.

Answer 3

Considering they come from different data sources, the graphs look pretty consistent to me.

You're seriously missing the boat if you think the world isn't warming. In the past decade, deniers have moved on to the "Okay, okay, it's warming, but there's no proof of causation!" argument. I would guess we have another 5 years before they give up on that one and move on to the "so what, global warming is not necessarily a bad thing" argument.

Answer 4

You do not make sense

The fact that a single year like 1932 is warmer than 1934 is
irrelevant, you must look at the general trend. I'm looking at your graphs and they are all rising

Answer 5

You make an incorrect statment here:

"These graphs not only contradict the recent NASA revelation that 1934 was the hottest year on record"

1934 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 United States. As you can see from your linked plots, 1934 was an utterly unremarkable year on a global scale.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/

You're then comparing several different datasets and saying they contradict eachother. In reality they differ by miniscule amounts because their data comes from different sources.

Your first graph is from a combination of 2 sources.

Your second is from NASA GISS. They have their own temperature stations.

Your third is from the Hadley Center in the UK. They have their own temperature stations too.

Your fourth is from the UNEP - not sure where they get their data from.

Slight differences in the absolute temperature do not matter - the global warming trend is what matters, and on this the different datasets agree.

Answer 6

According to the NASA graph, 1934 was the warmest year in the U.S., not globally.

The other graphs are GLOBAL, if you failed to see that.

Answer 7

The science is in detail papers like the IPCC report. You may not like the answers but several hundred scientists form around dthe world have been working on it. There are those who dissent and we need to try and understand the differences. This means that we have to use the brain.
For the sake of my lovely grandchildren that is what I am trying to do.
My main trusted sources are: -
Stern Review on the economics of climate change
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm