Why do Svensmark and Friis-Christensen claim temperatures have been flat since 1998?

Question

In "Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich" regarding the paper which concluded the Sun is not responsible for the global warming over the past 30 years, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen claim:

"global surface temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998."

Paper downloadable here:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

discussed on RealClimate here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen are the main proponents of the galactic cosmic ray warming theory.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahuxfpv5RzyHSeqsVZ1fxnEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

But we know warming is not only increasing, but accelerating

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As51esLbobIHNR73Q9Efqv_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071222151140AAPWALf

Why would these GCR propoents make this deceptive claim?

Graph of accelerating warming:

http://profend.com/gtr/graphs/meangraphave.html

Jello - I find that people use raw data (from a small part of the globe, no less) to hide the obvious long-term trends.

but if you really want to see the raw data, it's available in a link at the bottom of the graph page. Nothing to hide.

Larry - no it isn't. That's why I asked the question. Svensmark basically just says "well it looks flat to me!".

Svensmark's theory is basically the last hope for global warming deniers. While GCRs are unlikely to be responsible for any significant amount of the recent warming, they have not completely been ruled out yet.

So when the scientists authoring this theory make such an unscientific and statistically wrong claim as 'no warming since 1998', doesn't that bother you? Can you think of a reason why these scientists would have made such a wrong and deceptive claim?

Jim - choose whatever trend you want. 5 year average, 10, 30, 50, 100. All show warming. Dismissing the data is a common sign of denial.

Answer 1

Since he came up with the galactic cosmic ray warming theory, which as you said has serious problems, and how he's saying it hasn't warmed since 1998, I think Svensmark is coming up with some poor conclusions. Plus he has his reputation invested in the manmade global warming theory being wrong.

Answer 2

A property of moving averages is that they keep moving in the same direction after the underlying data has changed in trend.

To say that global surface temperatures haven't moved much since 1998 is a statement of fact.

It seems like every time a researcher produces some legitimate research that goes against the politics of climate change, realclimate accuse them of being some kind of morally flawed individuals bent on deceiving humanity for their own gains.

Answer 3

That is not really a question. It is a comment unless you expect us to say they meant this or that. I found your graph hilarious. You expect anyone to agree with the arbitrary trend. The data is all over the place. You accuse these two of deception but you provide nothing to indicate it except that it goes against your religiously held belief that there must be warming and it must be our fault and it must therefore be bad IMO.

Answer 4

It is explained quite well in the "Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing"

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf

Answer 5

And yet NASA shows that the temperatures have been flat since 1998.....

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

I find that people use graphs because they massage the raw data and need to hide what they've done.