NOAA describes this new evidence as “independent, objective” — even though it was developed by NOAA researchers and touted by Tom Karl.
NOAA describes this new evidence as “independent, objective” — even though it was developed by NOAA researchers and touted by Tom Karl.
Mike A, I don’t know if your question was rhetorical or not but they stopped at 1995 because temps steadied and then dropped.
It’s the same reason they always say hottest on record or hottest in the last 100 years. That would be the time the Little Ice Age ended so the temps HAD to go up.
I learned long ago that there are frequently huge differences between what is reported in a press release about a study and what the study itself actually says. The answers to the questions raised above may be answered in the actual paper, but now you can’t even purchase it. The AGU web site says “Purchase option not available for this content.” The Smithsonian/NASA ADS site says “Fulltext Article not available.” Maybe it has already been retracted?
Now, see, Mike, if you ask climate scientists these questions, they’ll show you the data and the error bars and they’ll make pretty cautious claims.
But the NOAA and the AGW “scientists” will make very bold claims and then keep the data to themselves when you ask them to support those claims. Then you find out they’ve boldly said “maybe”.
The NOAA press release includes a link to the actual article but the link takes you to a paywall. Like the press release, the abstract contains no actual data. I did find a link to a NOAA video about the study that was posted on YouTube in December, 2012. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oRa-yvQVLrs.
Notice the chart at the 2:25 point. It overlays the “paleo climate index” on the annual temperature anomalies for the period 1880-1995. In addition to the questions raised by “Snorbert” above, I have some additional questions:
– Notice the high resolution of the “paleo climate index”. How can they accurately detect such large year-to-year fluctuations from crustacean shells, coral growth, stalagmites and stalactites, and grape harvest dates?
– Given the apparent high resolution, why does the data stop at 1995? (The press release, the abstract and the video do not address this.)
– What would the chart look like with uncertainty ranges included?
People who claim paleo-records are good for tenths of a degree are highly suspicious.
If the claimed warming since about 1880 is all real — a doubtful position — then we know that CO2 had little influence on it because the curves vary without correlation to CO2 levels or production. We also know that warming since 1880 has been benign — weather has been behaving the way it did before by all the measures we know how to use.
Did you get a Government grant? or funding from NOAA [government agency] ? End this bribe sending to support PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL University Professors = no grant money = no jobs = smaller University and a huge reduction in the INTELLECTUAL ELITE population as there are ZERO jobs for these SOCIAL ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES.
If we can do this project we can end all this waste and start recovering our Liberties and freedom to practice in a true FREE ENTERPRISE economic system.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
I have no data to plot, but it looks to me as if the slope of the temperature increases between 1880 and 1900, and between 1920 and 1940 both are equal to or greater than the slope between 1980 and 1995. Of course the slope since 1995 is near zero.
If carbon dioxide is so important, why are the temperature increases when there was less carbon dioxide (~260 ppm to ~280 ppm) as fast as the increase when the carbon dioxide concentration was ~380 ppm? Next, why has the temperature been stable for the past 16 years?