This is the Global Warming section. Why do you still need a graph? Nobody disputes the recent warming trend. The dispute lies within the cause. Since we know CO2 levels are still climbing and temperatures aren't continuing in an upwards trend and seem to be going down (and they can't find a 'hot spot' either) then you can't connect the dots anymore?
How do you even consider being on this 'Global Warming' Section if you don't know those graphs by now?
Chem, are you looking for something like this? - http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-...
Image Source: http://www.universetoday.com/51824/scien...
When I try to go to the U.S. government sites, this is what I get - http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/
Chem, the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study worked with decadal temperatures - http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-find... This is a study headed by Richard Muller. The purpose of this study was to discover if weather station site locations were showing an exaggerated warming trend if these sites were located in urban heat islands (concrete, asphalt, airports and such) The study discovered that it made no difference where the weather stations were stationed for they showed the same warming trend that sitings away from urban heat islands were showing. You can read the study's results here - http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327...
Kano, really? You want someone to go to watt's site for science related matters? That is like going to barbershop when what you really need is a hair transplant. Just more denial of the evidence presented before you, either way.
I dug up these (note that the US government shut down is a bit of bummer for this exercise):
11 year running mean:
http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/global_temp_yearly_smthbin11_co2.png
Chem if you go to watts, click on reference pages, click on global climatic temperatures, you have lots of graphs updated daily direct from their scientific source. pick what you want.
The present method of measuring the global method was mainly finalized in 1987. That was 26 years ago. Anything before that is using a different method and so it would can only go back that far with any semblence of accuracy.
Then there is the question of purity. East Anglia and James Hansen corrupted data to prove AGW. The pure data cannot ever be retrieved. Thank you greenies!
I use the woodfortrees site. That has the main temperature datasets and lets you fit straight lines. You can get several least squares curve fits on the same plot but it doesn't do moving averages. ?
You could download some data and do your own graphs: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temper...
I was looking for a graph that shows a running average (that is, showing for any given year the average of the x closest years) of average surface temperatures, and the largest running average I found was 5 years.
Does anyone have a graph showing a longer running average of surface temperatures? 30 years (so we can get true climate) would be nice, but I'd settle for a decade. I also wouldn't turn down running-average graphs of other key AGW factors or measurements, such as CO2 concentrations or ocean temperatures.
Graphs from trustworthy scientific sources are preferred to ones from mostly-political blogs or the like, of course.
Chem if you go to watts, click on reference pages, click on global climatic temperatures, you have lots of graphs updated daily direct from their scientific source. pick what you want.
The present method of measuring the global method was mainly finalized in 1987. That was 26 years ago. Anything before that is using a different method and so it would can only go back that far with any semblence of accuracy.
Then there is the question of purity. East Anglia and James Hansen corrupted data to prove AGW. The pure data cannot ever be retrieved. Thank you greenies!
I use the woodfortrees site. That has the main temperature datasets and lets you fit straight lines. You can get several least squares curve fits on the same plot but it doesn't do moving averages. ?
You could download some data and do your own graphs: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temper...
I was looking for a graph that shows a running average (that is, showing for any given year the average of the x closest years) of average surface temperatures, and the largest running average I found was 5 years.
Does anyone have a graph showing a longer running average of surface temperatures? 30 years (so we can get true climate) would be nice, but I'd settle for a decade. I also wouldn't turn down running-average graphs of other key AGW factors or measurements, such as CO2 concentrations or ocean temperatures.
Graphs from trustworthy scientific sources are preferred to ones from mostly-political blogs or the like, of course.
