Global Warming backdown

[Michael Hardner]

Firstly, picking at random ignores the fact that the world has been warming by one degree per century since the Little Ice Age ended in the late nineteenth century. So we've gone up and down, up and down....but always upward.....now we've evened out and according to scientists, might encounter slight cooling for a couple of decades. The point being is that recent years SHOULD be among the warmest because of the natural trend of moving ever upwards. Lets not get into the consensus argument that recent warming is accellerated....the fact is that it's been going up for over a century so the warmest years will for the most part, be relatively recent years.

I'm just talking about the data. It seems to indicate that the recent decade is warmer than would be expected. If recent years should be warmer then that makes sense that you would have shown that data to show that the recent years are warmest.

As to the causes behind it, I would wonder what is causing these ups and downs.

My previous link has been corrected - it's from Environment Canada. Wyly and Waldo have reported that 2010 was Canada's warmest winter and that 2009 was Globally, the warmest year ever in the Southern Hemisphere and the second warmest in the Northerm Hemisphere. Canada's a big country - so is the US. One can't help be sceptical of Global land-based temperatures because of all the issues that have surfaced - the huge "drop out" of weather stations in 1990, urban heat islands, poorly sited stations, and most aof all "adjustments" and "homogenization" - computerized estimates that are plugged into global "cells" to fill in the huge gaps.

I would like to see a study that quantifies the problems with land temperatures, as I have mostly read about them on blogs and from hog-callers in the media.

I'll add another decade to Canada's temperature history just to see if it opens some eyes with regards to accellerated warming since 1970:

Canada - since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

1990 - 42nd warmest

1991 - 24

1992 - 48

1993 - 23

1994 - 25

1995 - 18

1996 - 39

1995 - 18

1996 - 39

1997 - 21

1998 - 1

1999 - 5

2000 - 11

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

The data still seems to show that more recent years are warmer, but from your note it seems that that is what you are trying to show.

[Moonlight Graham]

The purpose of re-posting Canada's ranking of the last 10 years is to at least give some sanity to what's going on right here in Canada - using a measuring process that I would hope is less encumbered and less potentially biased than these "Global Average Temperatures".

I don't understand the fascination with Environment Canada. The U.S. surface measurements have proven to be the most accurate in the world, despite the urban heat island effect. Also, until recent months the Environment Canada website still had the Mann hockey stick graph posted on their website being used as a public reference for temperature, even though it has long been proven to be inaccurate.

The other issue is that the Canada temperatures show a regional bias, like any other country. But if you prefer Canada temps, then why not use more accurate satellite measurements from 1979-onwards.

I think the biggest thing that the global temp level since 2003 showing stasis rather continued warming shows is that temp does not work in lock-step correlation with CO2 levels, and that there are many other variables that determine climate. But this is something most modestly informed people know anyways.

[waldo]

If I'm going to trust any land-based temperatures, I'll trust Environment Canada. I must admit, I was surprised at how mild our winter was when you consider all the snowstroms and cold weather they had in the US. People are having trouble believing these "Global Average Temperatures" when they constantly read of such cold weather all around the world.

and that's because we have the mainstream media lazy journalism types pushing the 'weather is climate' nonsense... sort of like Shady's display of intellectual dishonesty the other day when he pumps up his chest and proclaims that "Donald Trump has called for a revoke of Gore's Nobel Prize"... because of all the snowstorms the U.S. east coast received this past winter. That anyone should actually care what Trump has to say about 'most anything'... but it's the idgits, like Trump (and the parroting types, like Shady), that ignorantly and/or purposely distort and/or fabricate in order to cause confusion and misrepresent the actual science. As was pointed out to the intellectually dishonest Shady... the recent number and severity of U.S. snowstorms is completely consistent with the theory of AGW climate change.

[wyly]

I don't understand the fascination with Environment Canada. The U.S. surface measurements have proven to be the most accurate in the world, despite the urban heat island effect. Also, until recent months the Environment Canada website still had the Mann hockey stick graph posted on their website being used as a public reference for temperature, even though it has long been proven to be inaccurate.

it's a denier trait to stick to information that has proven inaccurate, "heard it once on TV so it's a fact forever"..the Mann stick has held up other data research back it up...it's solid...

I think the biggest thing that the global temp level since 2003 showing stasis rather continued warming shows is that temp does not work in lock-step correlation with CO2 levels, and that there are many other variables that determine climate. But this is something most modestly informed people know anyways.

nature is messy, everyone expects nice neat simple progressions, it doesn't work that way other varibles influence the data such as la Nina's and el Nino's and Jet Streams...

[wyly]

I would like to see a study that quantifies the problems with land temperatures, as I have mostly read about them on blogs and from hog-callers in the media.

those have all been answered on the forum but shady and simple prefer to close there eyes to the answers and return to them over and over each time as if they discovered some new pertinent information...

[Shady]

Record cold temperatures all over the world, but these pseudo-scientists wanna pretend it was the warmest winter in blah blah blah. Maybe they should try moving their temperature recording stations away from urban areas. Of course, that would involve basing climate science on actual science and away from politics. Which is their entire intent.

Anyways, another day, another global warming scandal...

UK ads banned for overstating climate change

TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.

The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.

Link

[waldo]

So we've gone up and down, up and down....but always upward.....now we've evened out and according to scientists, might encounter slight cooling for a couple of decades. The point being is that recent years SHOULD be among the warmest because of the natural trend of moving ever upwards. Lets not get into the consensus argument that recent warming is accellerated....the fact is that it's been going up for over a century so the warmest years will for the most part, be relatively recent years.

and you still don't get it... you've been presented with the actual Environment Canada trending graphics that show the, as you say, "ups and downs". And somehow... somehow... you have the idiocy to suggest an "evening out" - huh! And, even better, you would presume that the, as you say, "natural trend of moving ever upwards" should include ever accelerating warming, with each subsequent year being warmer than the last. Hey, Simple... do we need to start over with Trending 101?

but let's update since your favoured Environment Canada data has now been updated to include the early 2010 months - see here: from Environment Canada:

The national average temperature for the winter 2009/2010 was 4.0°C above normal, based on preliminary data, which makes this the warmest winter on record since nationwide records began in 1948.

The temperature trend graph shows that winter temperatures have remained at or above normal since 1997. The red dashed line indicates winter temperatures have warmed over the last 63 years by 2.5°C. The winter season shows the greatest warming of any season, but all seasons have shown a warming trend since 1948.

but lets continue with your desire to focus on Environment Canada... this graphic particularly highlights the winter of 2009/2010 departures on a national level - I trust you'll accept the Environment Canada representation of the most northerly warming across Canada. Let's keep that in mind when the next idgit has the temerity to suggest the Arctic ice isn't melting, that the permafrost isn't melting!

you keep suggesting "some scientists suggest we might encounter slight cooling for a couple of decades". You've been asked several times to advise which scientists you're speaking of and to provide citations that might properly contextually frame your unsubstantiated statement... of course, you've also been cautioned on misrepresenting decreased warming acceleration as "cooling". As before, please substantiate your continued statements in this regard. Waiting...

One can't help be sceptical of Global land-based temperatures because of all the issues that have surfaced - the huge "drop out" of weather stations in 1990, urban heat islands, poorly sited stations, and most aof all "adjustments" and "homogenization" - computerized estimates that are plugged into global "cells" to fill in the huge gaps.

and your continued problem is that you would sooner trust the fabrications emanating from your TV weatherman sources over the actual science and direct refutations of your TV weatherman claims concerning, station dropout, UHI being improperly managed/accounted for, site location positioning, and adjustments. Trust in TV weatherman, Simple - obviously you feel a kinship of some kind!

[waldo]

Record cold temperatures all over the world, but these pseudo-scientists wanna pretend it was the warmest winter in blah blah blah. Maybe they should try moving their temperature recording stations away from urban areas. Of course, that would involve basing climate science on actual science and away from politics. Which is their entire intent.

wahoo! Shady's discovered Simple's TV weatherman go-to, Anthony Watts!!! Excellent Shady, we can have some real fun now. Let's see you bring forward the case for urban station bias in the surface temperature record.

what could be more moronic than to have an obtuse, know-nothing miscreant, like yourself, label scientists engaged in study climate science as "pseudo-scientists".

so... clearly... when you haven't the actual science to fall back on, the next best thing for a parroting denier, like yourself, is to attempt to broad-base align scientists with politics. I trust we'll read much more from you on this level. We could have some real fun with that one as well. Bring it on simpleton.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't understand the fascination with Environment Canada. The U.S. surface measurements have proven to be the most accurate in the world, despite the urban heat island effect.

US surface temperatures may very well be the most accurate.....of course, that implies that the rest of the world is not quite as accurate. The US actually has less land mass than Canada.....so again, when you start rolling in all these other countries to come up with some sort of Global Average, that's where I start to lose faith er, become sceptical of the accuracy. That's why I like to do a reasonability check with how the temperatures are fairing in Canada through each decade and if you look at the 20 years that I've posted, you'll be hard pressed to see any scary warming trend except for a handful of years as we transitioned from the 90's to the 2000's.

[waldo]

US surface temperatures may very well be the most accurate.....of course, that implies that the rest of the world is not quite as accurate.

well, which is it? You seem to quite liberally mix your degrees of certainty. Perhaps you could provide your expertise to define those certainty and accuracy levels - huh?

The US actually has less land mass than Canada.....so again, when you start rolling in all these other countries to come up with some sort of Global Average, that's where I start to lose faith er, become sceptical of the accuracy. That's why I like to do a reasonability check with how the temperatures are fairing in Canada through each decade and if you look at the 20 years that I've posted, you'll be hard pressed to see any scary warming trend except for a handful of years as we transitioned from the 90's to the 2000's.

a reasonability check? You continue to flounder... worse than ever! Again, you would presume to pull a trend out of your ass by looking at table data showing winter departure temperatures between 1948 and 2010. And even better, you presume to make that assessment based on... 1990-to-2000 transition years - bloody hell! If you want to speak trends why not reference the, uhhh... actual trend data/graphic that keeps being presented to you - how novel!

yes indeedee, shall we have a look at that Environment Canada table data you keep mentioning while incorrectly referring to it in a trending context. The table data that shows winter national temperature departures, ranked warmest to coolest, over the period 1948 - 2010 (with departure temperatures from the 1951-1980 average). The table data that shows that over the last 63 years, of the ten warmest years, 4 have occurred within the last decade, and 10 of the last 20 winters are listed among the 20 warmest over the same 63 years period. And what was it you presumed to suggest in that 1990-to-2000 transition period - duh!

Rank	Year	Departure °C
1	2010	4.0
2	2006	3.9
4	2007	3.0
5	1998	2.8
7	2000	2.5
8	1999	2.5
11	2002	2.3
12	2003	2.2
19	2004	1.5
20	2001	1.4

[waldo]

Also, until recent months the Environment Canada website still had the Mann hockey stick graph posted on their website being used as a public reference for temperature, even though it has long been proven to be inaccurate.

you have stated this previously... suggestions of the 'inaccuracy of the Mann hockey stick'. Whatever the relevance of the 'hockey stick' (Mann or otherwise) has; rather, the relevance you might presume it has, the many independent reconstructions over the years have most certainly spoken to deny your suggestions of broad-based 'inaccuracy'. Of course, considering Mann has a decade+ worth of studies bringing forward new and self-corroborating reconstructions, it is always helpful to have someone actually define the specific reconstruction they refer to when generalizing about the 'Mann hockey stick'. We've certainly beat this one up pretty good in earlier MLW threads - perhaps you have new, uhhh... insight... to offer in that regard.

I think the biggest thing that the global temp level since 2003 showing stasis rather continued warming shows is that temp does not work in lock-step correlation with CO2 levels, and that there are many other variables that determine climate. But this is something most modestly informed people know anyways.

the short period of time since 2003 is certainly subject to the influences of natural variables, much more than over longer periods. Of course, CO2 is not the only driver of climate change; however, it most certainly is the dominant forcing over the last 35 years period.

[Keepitsimple]

a reasonability check? You continue to flounder... worse than ever! Again, you would presume to pull a trend out of your ass by looking at table data showing winter departure temperatures between 1948 and 2010.

Good try at deflection Waldo. The data I posted was not for Winter - they were full annual rankings......and I never said there was an actual trend - I simply pointed out that there wasn't anything scary going on - at least in Canada.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's some new data that can be found at the NOAA website. I like the way the data is presented because it's not in the form of anomolies...it has actual average temperatures going back to 1895. I chose the National numbers and put them into an Excel spreadsheet so I could average them out for each decade going back to 1900. I'm not sure if these temperatures have been "adjusted" but because we're just looking at the US, we don't have to worry about rolling in all the other countries with their dubious coverage. Here's the results:

1900-1909 52.365

1910-1919 52.141

1920-1929 52.575

1930-1939 53.376

1940-1949 52.842

1950-1959 52.960

1960-1969 52.464

1970-1979 52.451

1980-1989 53.064

1990-1999 53.601

2000-2009 54.012

Overall 1900=2009 average temperature is 52.858

I'm sure a number of observations could be made - but I'll reference the common statement that "most of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic in nature". Again, this is just for the US but it's pretty clear that there was less warming than the average for the century through the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.....and of course CO2 was on the rise all through that period with the post-war industrial boom. Once again, I am not trying to dispute the theory humans can contribute to Climate Change - only that there are effective observations that put in question that we are experiencing runaway, catastrophic Global Warming. It's numbers such as these - and those from Environment Canada that make me believe that our contribution to Climate Change is not a major one.

Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Edited March 15, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

Here's some new data that can be found at the NOAA website. I like the way the data is presented because it's not in the form of anomolies...it has actual average temperatures going back to 1895. I chose the National numbers and put them into an Excel spreadsheet so I could average them out for each decade going back to 1900. I'm not sure if these temperatures have been "adjusted" but because we're just looking at the US, we don't have to worry about rolling in all the other countries with their dubious coverage. Here's the results:

1900-1909 52.365

1910-1919 52.141

1920-1929 52.575

1930-1939 53.376

1940-1949 52.842

1950-1959 52.960

1960-1969 52.464

1970-1979 52.451

1980-1989 53.064

1990-1999 53.601

2000-2009 54.012

Overall 1900=2009 average temperature is 52.858

I'm sure a number of observations could be made - but I'll reference the common statement that "most of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic in nature". Again, this is just for the US but it's pretty clear that there was less warming than the average for the century through the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.....and of course CO2 was on the rise all through that period with the post-war industrial boom. Once again, I am not trying to dispute the theory humans can contribute to Climate Change - only that there are effective observations that put in question that we are experiencing runaway, catastrophic Global Warming. It's numbers such as these - and those from Environment Canada that make me believe that our contribution to Climate Change is not a major one.

Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

KiS - you're making a few mistakes here. First of all, this is just sample data so we can't talk about the cause. Secondly, the way to determine a trend is to apply a regression analysis on the data, and not the decade summary. Just looking at it isn't enough. This is why I say that you're in choppy waters when you try to do the science yourself. I did regression analysis in university but that was years ago and I would be careful to do so again.

[waldo]

US surface temperatures may very well be the most accurate.....of course, that implies that the rest of the world is not quite as accurate. The US actually has less land mass than Canada.....so again, when you start rolling in all these other countries to come up with some sort of Global Average, that's where I start to lose faith er, become sceptical of the accuracy. That's why I like to do a reasonability check with how the temperatures are fairing in Canada through each decade and if you look at the 20 years that I've posted, you'll be hard pressed to see any scary warming trend except for a handful of years as we transitioned from the 90's to the 2000's.

Good try at deflection Waldo. The data I posted was not for Winter - they were full annual rankings......and I never said there was an actual trend - I simply pointed out that there wasn't anything scary going on - at least in Canada.

you moran... you most certainly speak of trending in relation to your links to tabular data - I've highlighted your most recent misspeak above... it's something you've repeatedly done, many times over. It's been pointed out to several times in the past - yet, you still haven't grasped it. As for your presumed deflection, presenting you the winter annual data was prefaced with the statement that Environment Canada has now updated 2010 data to allow us to gauge the winter of 2009-2010... and it's the annual winter data where we see the most dramatic effects of warming. Perhaps at some point we might hit a milestone where you actually understand the premise of trending and stop trying to apply the Simple ton eyeball method against regional table samples, be they Canada or the U.S.

trust in your TV weathermen, Simple! Your Simple "eyeball reasonability" tests would presume to ignore the multitude of studies that have shown that the effects of urban heat island and microsite influences have negligible effect on long term temperature trends, particularly when averaged over larger regions. You've been linked to those studies, key extracts of those studies have been quoted for you... and yet, you would sooner place your trust in TV weathermen. Numerous studies have shown your TV weathermen's claims concerning station dropout bias, have no foundation - none, whatsoever... and yet, you would sooner place your trust in TV weathermen.

[waldo]

KiS - you're making a few mistakes here. First of all, this is just sample data so we can't talk about the cause. Secondly, the way to determine a trend is to apply a regression analysis on the data, and not the decade summary. Just looking at it isn't enough. This is why I say that you're in choppy waters when you try to do the science yourself. I did regression analysis in university but that was years ago and I would be careful to do so again.

perhaps he's found something so basic, so fundamental... perhaps the Simple "eyeball reasonability" tests are all that's needed.

[wyly]

Numerous studies have shown your TV weathermen's claims concerning station dropout bias, have no foundation - none, whatsoever... and yet, you would sooner place your trust in TV weathermen.

in fact even using the TV weatherman's selected sites the results mirrored the official data, imagine that Watts verifying global warming...

[Shady]

Rank	Year	Departure °C
1	2010	4.0
2	2006	3.9
4	2007	3.0
5	1998	2.8
7	2000	2.5
8	1999	2.5
11	2002	2.3
12	2003	2.2
19	2004	1.5
20	2001	1.4

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

[waldo]

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

[waldo]

trust in your TV weathermen, Simple! Your Simple "eyeball reasonability" tests would presume to ignore the multitude of studies that have shown that the effects of urban heat island and microsite influences have negligible effect on long term temperature trends, particularly when averaged over larger regions. You've been linked to those studies, key extracts of those studies have been quoted for you... and yet, you would sooner place your trust in TV weathermen. Numerous studies have shown your TV weathermen's claims concerning station dropout bias, have no foundation - none, whatsoever... and yet, you would sooner place your trust in TV weathermen.

in fact even using the TV weatherman's selected sites the results mirrored the official data, imagine that Watts verifying global warming...

but it gets even better... let's not forget one of the most recent studies mentioned in an earlier MLW post,... (Menne et al 2010)... that was able to identify an overall cool bias within the TV weathermen Watts' data... and isolate the cause. That's right - the temperature record actually is biased cooler than it should be.

[Shady]

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process. In the mean time, I found this particular comment rather odd...

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

Why would I need to do that? Even AGW true-believers will insist that global warming doesn't mean that every place in the world will necessarily experience warming temperatures. Why are you holding the medieval warming period to a higher standard than AGW?

And another thing. Care to explain the scientific reasons for the medieval warming period? And care to explain how you know forsure that those same reasons aren't having a similar effect, in some way, to some degree (pun intended), on our temperatures now? Even if it's just a small effect. Please, I'd love to hear your answers, and the answer of your AGW heros..er..experts.

Oh, and while you're at it. Answer a true or false question for me. Did TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change get banned for exaggerating global warming? And were they banned because their claims were found to be not supported by science? Just a true or false answer is all I'm looking for. I'm sure you're a busy guy.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Shady

[waldo]

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process. In the mean time, I found this particular comment rather odd...

Why would I need to do that? Even AGW true-believers will insist that global warming doesn't mean that every place in the world will necessarily experience warming temperatures. Why are you holding the medieval warming period to a higher standard than AGW?

excellent - bring your substantiation forward Shady - I'm quite sure we can have some real fun. As for your commenting on the global versus regional aspect of the MWP, we can certainly accept your premise that the MWP was a regional circumstance. Is that what you're saying Shady... is that why you feel there's no reason for you to comment in that regard?

[Keepitsimple]

... of course, you've also been cautioned on misrepresenting decreased warming acceleration as "cooling". As before, please substantiate your continued statements in this regard. Waiting...

No - you've just gone and misrepresented it as "decreased warming acceleration". I usually refer to the last decade as a lack of warming (as the BBC interview with Phil Jones said) and I've said that going forward, many scient1sts say that we'll probably experience some cooling for a couple of decades. Would you at least agree that the last decade has been a period of stable global mean temperature?

[waldo]

No - you've just gone and misrepresented it as "decreased warming acceleration". I usually refer to the last decade as a lack of warming (as the BBC interview with Phil Jones said) and I've said that going forward, many scient1sts say that we'll probably experience some cooling for a couple of decades. Would you at least agree that the last decade has been a period of stable global mean temperature?

again... your fixation with a single scientist, Phil Jones... and your continued misrepresentations of what he said - why are you trying to hone in on Shady's intellectually dishonest territory? In spite of your fixation with Phil Jones and your misrepresentation of his BBC interview, and within a purposeful cherry-picked 15 year short-term period, why do presume that a 0.12C per decade positive trend for CRU data over that cherry-picked period is cooling or even "stability"? Are you possibly confused because your "eyeball reasonability" tests haven't been able to identify that positive warming trend? Better yet, why do insist on focusing exclusively on CRU data, considering that for years, deniers claimed it was falsified, it was "cooked"? Suddenly, every denier type wants to value the CRU data - go figure

at least you're saying something new... you've moved from stating "some scientists" to "many scientists" state that several decades of cooling is ahead. As before, please name the (now "many") scientists and their statements for contextual evaluation.

it seems no matter how many times you're presented with evidence of warming for this past decade being the warmest decade ever... you still emphatically insist (in bolded font highlights, no less) that it's cooling - or "stable". Should we even bother... just one more time - from NASA/GISS!

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade

[Keepitsimple]

it seems no matter how many times you're presented with evidence of warming for this past decade being the warmest decade ever... you still emphatically insist (in bolded font highlights, no less) that it's cooling - or "stable". Should we even bother... just one more time - from.....

Waldo.....so far, 250 of "your" scientists have signed a letter calling for better Quality Control but defending the IPCC on their "minor" mistakes in AR7 and unequivocally supporting the basic science. Your inability to do nothing but parrot Real Climate is what ruins any positive influence that you could have. Will you show any humility at all and admit that you have been wrong with regards to the lack of warming of the last decade? I won't hold my breath.

Because the long-term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

Link: http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

Edited March 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple