But then the temperature swings up and down that far annually.
What it means is what reasonable people have known all along--"changes" that have been reported are inside any reasonable margin of error.
I really wonder if we have warmed at all since the 1930s.
I want you to picture something.
I'm measuring some value. These are the results I get, in order:
1, 2, 3, 1.1, 2.3, 3, 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 1.3, 2.5, 3.2, 1.4, 2.4, 3.4, 1.5, 2.5, 3.6
How would you describe that set of measurements?
Personally, I'd describe it as an upward trend with a severe oscillation and some random variation. Even though the difference between the beginning and the end of the set is less than the differences within the set (about .5 vs about 2), it's abundantly clear that the trend line is upwards.
Similarly, particularly when you're talking about surface measurements (remember, the oceans hold a lot of heat), the regular annual temperature variations are bigger than any remotely likely trend in long-term temperatures.
But, our proxies and so forth tend to either average those things out, or in some way measure winter differently from summer. And, of course, with direct measurements we can simply mathematically figure out what the "normal" temperature variation is within the year, and essentially cancel it out.
So, no, that's not a problem for global warming, as you seem to be implying.
The quantities you're talking about are not the mean temperature of the planet, they are calculated quantities that serve as proxies for the mean temperature of the planet. If we could sample every point on the surface of the planet, I'm quite certain that the year-to-year variation would go down. We may be able to get something much closer to that in the future with better satellite measurements of temperature.
I'm a bit surprised you would include that first link to Spencer in your question. For those that didn't click on it, here is a quote from Spencer:
"As of June 2013, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming"
Isn't that just the opposite of what Ottawa Mike and others are always accusing scientists of doing with the surface-based measurements? Isn't it just terrible when that pesky warming starts contaminating Spencer's records? It has to be removed immediately!
I'm kidding, of course, I'm sure there really is a spurious warming on Aqua--Spencer and Christy have had to change their algorithms repeatedly in the past because they were caught producing temperatures that were anomalously low, so I would not expect them to attempt any funny business these days, they know it would be immediately detected.
When the statistical difference in mean global temperatures exceeds the variance of the data used to generate those means, then you can be confident to a well defined mathematical percentage that the trend is upwards. This is how the IPCC gets their confidence levels.
Natural climate variation is like Satan to alarmists. It sends them into a screaming frenzy as they attempt to throw holy water onto anything that threatens their sacred cow, AGW, as they utter their mantras, industry bad, government good, free markets bad, government control excellent, oil bad, solar good, yada yada yada.....
As Peg previously pointed out, a thermometer is also a temperature proxy. It is just a little more difficult for them to take the data from a thermometer and change 30 degrees to 33 degrees, not that they haven't done so (e.g Hansen). There are always little tricks to try to exaggerate the present and it never seems to bother alarmists and it never seems to even cause any curiosity or skepticism as long as it points in the right direction which is left.
One year is weather.
People claim that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, so therefore it supposedly has no effect.
I would like them to explain that to the big green growth in my back yard.
People talk about poisons like cyanide to point out that the claim that concentrations measured in parts per million = no effect is nonsense.
Maybe you should read "Roy W. Spencer's global warming skepticism for dummies" [1] and what is measured [2]
He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute (a conservative "think tank" funded by fossil fuel companies), and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. (a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to care for the environment)
Spencer's research work is (tax) funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE and the DOT. [3]
To be featured on the smog blog is an honor, much like being mentioned by a political opponent in a negative ad campaign. They won't say anything nice, but thanks for the recognition.
The fact that this Psychologist has been labeled a climatologist, is pure fiction. Frequently non climatologist's refer to themselves as a climate scientists or are referred to by others as a climate scientists. Joanna Nova s another example of this. You could get a degree in cosmetology and call yourself a climate scientist but referring to someone as a climatologist who is not degreed in climatology is simply FRAUD
Spencer is a diehard skeptic and only lumatics ascribe to his theories
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
The warmists and there so-called science. They cant even predict the weather accurately so how in the hell are they going to predict the climate which has ALWAYS changed????
Here's a good take down of this so-called consensus http://heartland.org/policy-documents/sc...
Its a bloody joke so the government can have even more control on us, tax us more and make liberals like al gore richer in the process.
... so what does this say about how we measure present and past temperatures?
Does the Earth's average temperature really fluctuate this much in a short time period or is it more humanlike and maintains a certain average temperature?
Does satellite measurements reflect this type of fluctuation when measuring 'energy in' and 'energy out'?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
CO2 has been likened to a virus or even a poison in our atmosphere.
