Global Warming Mapped!

[Keepitsimple]

I suspect those are cumulative changes. I have posted the temperature graph already - here it is again:

Wiki page

They are not cumulative. They are decade by decade comparisons to the 30 year period 1951-1980 and thus show whether each decade was warmer or colder than that period. Your link to a temperature graph is NASA related but is in Wiki - it's a fairly simple graph - one no doubt used by IPCC. This thread was started by showing very detailed Global coverages by decade and I've just asked if by looking at the pictures for all the decades up to 1980 - whether you can see any significant warming. Even NASA claims that two thirds of the "warming has happened since 1975. If that's so, why? CO2 rose more from 1880 to 1975 than it dod from 1975 to current.

The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.

Link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

Edited December 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

They are not cumulative. They are decade by decade comparisons to the 30 year period 1951-1980 and thus show whether each decade was warmer or colder than that period. Your link to a temperature graph is NASA related but is in Wiki - it's a fairly simple graph - one no doubt used by IPCC. This thread was started by showing very detailed Global coverages by decade and I've just asked if by looking at the pictures for all the decades up to 1980 - whether you can see any significant warming. Even NASA claims that two thirds of the "warming has happened since 1975. If that's so, why? CO2 rose more from 1880 to 1975 than it dod from 1975 to current.

Really. Well, it's hard to tell from the shading that the line graph is the same data.

CO2 rose more as a percentage from 1880 to 1975 ? It is overall higher, though, after 1975 ?

[waldo]

Well, they sure appear to be correlated to increases in co2 so that would be kind of an unusual coincidence don't you think ?

How so? Take a look at the complete record and you'll see that every decade from 1880 right up to 1980 show little or no warming - maybe even a tiny bit of cooling (look at all the blue and white). At the same time, CO2 went from 280PPM to 340 or 350PPM - why didn't the temperature start to rise until 1980 if there is such a strong correlation with CO2? Some people say that the older records have been adjusted and homogenized to make it look cooler so that recent temperatures appear warmer.....but just look at the graphs and explain that "anomole" if you can.

Link to all decades: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y

I suspect those are cumulative changes. I have posted the temperature graph already - here it is again:

Wiki page

They are not cumulative. They are decade by decade comparisons to the 30 year period 1951-1980 and thus show whether each decade was warmer or colder than that period. Your link to a temperature graph is NASA related but is in Wiki - it's a fairly simple graph - one no doubt used by IPCC. This thread was started by showing very detailed Global coverages by decade and I've just asked if by looking at the pictures for all the decades up to 1980 - whether you can see any significant warming. Even NASA claims that two thirds of the "warming has happened since 1975. If that's so, why? CO2 rose more from 1880 to 1975 than it dod from 1975 to current.

notwithstanding Simple's keen eyeball prowess in presuming to interpret a historical CO2-temperature correlation from a series of image map presentations on temperatures alone...

- historical trends in CO2 concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale (Vostok, Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, SIO, CRUTEM3v) - here:

- CO2 concentration and temperature trend overlay ((Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (NOAA) and annual global temperature anomaly (GISS)) from 1964 to 2008) - here:

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo, can I just invite you to other boards when I have trouble arguing AGW ?

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo, can I just invite you to other boards when I have trouble arguing AGW ?

Did I mention that Waldo was on IGNORE.....but I'm sure he did an excellent job of cutting and pasting. Michael, I've still got a bit of an open mind on the subject but I've always been a sceptic - I think that's healthy. While I don't have the wherewithall to go deeply into all the peripheral science, I have been looking to be convinced by the basics - the fundamentals. CO2 has been rising steadily from about 280 PPM in 1880 to 390 today. We now know that there has been a "lack of warming" since 1995 - or to put it in Phil Jones terms "not statistically significant". So.....there was a burst of warming in the nineties or as NASA says 2/3 of the total warming since 1880 has occurred since 1975 - but remember - it has slowed down since 1995 - or 2000 or whatever you like - it's slowed! So where on earth (punny) is there anything approaching a direct correlation with CO2? That's the big problem that I have with the whole theory - even allowing for dubious temperature measurement techniques. It just doesn't pass the observational smell test.

[waldo]

Did I mention that Waldo was on IGNORE.....

yes, and as I've stated, repeatedly, each of the many, many, many, many, many times you've highlighted the point that you have me on ignore... the historical MLW record shows that the ignore switch was pulled over your desire to raise the abortion debate within Canada - more to the point, you took extreme exception to my challenging you over your desire/longings to have the Harper Conservative government legislate morality. Just so we continue to be clear on the matter - hey?

[waldo]

We now know that there has been a "lack of warming" since 1995 - or to put it in Phil Jones terms "not statistically significant".

gee, should one even bother to resurrect the "Intellectual Dishonest" thread that TrueMetis raised over this same nonsense from the Shadyone?

notwithstanding:

- the existence of all the other global temperature records that showed/show statistically significant warming,

- the fact the time period in the question raised to Phil Jones was a purposely crafted interval chosen by a renowned denier as fed to the BBC reporter,

- the CRU record has historically shown less warming (than all other global temperature records)... simply because it doesn't actually include temperature data from the Arctic (the area of the globe presenting the most dramatic warming),

- the existing trend showed warming @ 0.12C per decade

- statistical significance was lacking by only 2%

- statistical significance existed if the period of time was simply moved back a single year from 1995-2009 to 1994-2009

notwithstanding all of the above... Phil Jones has recently been asked to comment in response to a like question - to provide an update intended to include temperature data from the point of that BBC interview question. Gee... how come the mainstream media and denialsphere hasn't bothered to wildly echo and trump the fact that Phil Jones (as independently corroborated), now advises that the CRU data (1995-2010) does show warming at the statistically significant level. Go figure!

for months on end, MLW's self-recognized, self-nominated and self-elected, "Winner of Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' Award 2007, 2008, 2009", in an intellectually dishonest manner, carried the Phil Jones quote in his Shadysignature... I'm quite surprised he doesn't give equal time to the updated Phil Jones statistically significant quote. Go figure!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well you still have not explained the 800 year lag thing very well. Because if stuff is happening now according to your statement that we won't see effects for a few hundred years .. can you clear that up?

Maybe I'm just not very good at explaining it try Wyly's response.

Edited December 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

***bumped*** ... an in advance thank you to MLW's self-nominated, self-elected and self-recognized, "Winner of Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' Award 2007, 2008, 2009"... for doing the right thing and acknowledging and wildly trumpeting the latest updated Phil Jones statement on statistically significant CRU temperature data I'm sure a MLW status update message is in the making!

notwithstanding all of the above... Phil Jones has recently been asked to comment in response to a like question - to provide an update intended to include temperature data from the point of that BBC interview question. Gee... how come the mainstream media and denialsphere hasn't bothered to wildly echo and trump the fact that Phil Jones (as independently corroborated), now advises that the CRU data (1995-2010) does show warming at the statistically significant level. Go figure!

for months on end, MLW's self-nominated, self-elected and self-recognized, "Winner of Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' Award 2007, 2008, 2009", in an intellectually dishonest manner, carried the Phil Jones quote in his Shadysignature... I'm quite surprised he doesn't give equal time to the updated Phil Jones statistically significant quote. Go figure!

[Shady]

for months on end, MLW's self-recognized, self-nominated and self-elected, "Winner of Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' Award 2007, 2008, 2009", in an intellectually dishonest manner, carried the Phil Jones quote in his Shadysignature...

And for months I was correct. The fact that Phil Jones has now "updated" things to assert that the data does show a statistically significant warming only proves my point that that wasn't the case a year ago. So once again, I'm proven correct.

I'm quite surprised he doesn't give equal time to the updated Phil Jones statistically significant quote. Go figure!

Geez, I'm sorry I didn't provide equal time to something I didn't know had happened.

P.S. Rumour has it that I'm highly favoured to win the Most Outstanding Poster award for this year as well.

[waldo]

And for months I was correct. The fact that Phil Jones has now "updated" things to assert that the data does show a statistically significant warming only proves my point that that wasn't the case a year ago. So once again, I'm proven correct.

no - of course not... the only reason it came forward again today in MLW, is because Simple used that very Phil Jones quote reference in one of his posts... used it in the same manner you did for months on end... to attempt to downplay/negate/deny actual warming.

of course, you don't even have the basic wherewithal to understand principles of proper trending... that the question was pre-loaded to cherry-pick the time-frame. As I said, simply adding another year (1994) to the interval period brought forward the statistical significance... as has now adding another year (2010) to the interval period, equally, brought forward the statistical significance within the CRU data. And, of course, as is the denier way, you purposely ignored the fact that all other global temperature records did (and still do) show statistically significant warming. And, of course, as is the denier way, you purposely ignored the fact that CRU data is distinct from all other global temperature records in that it doesn't include Arctic data (the area with the earth's greatest warming)... hence it's historical positioning as always being the temperature record that showed the least warming of all other global temperature records.

none of it mattered to you... it was simply another means to an intellectually dishonest pursuit on your part. In your parroting best you simply mimicked the "warming has ended", "there's been no warming" fabrications/distortions that ran rampant through the mainstream media (as fueled by the denislsphere). It's just what you do!

Geez, I'm sorry I didn't provide equal time to something I didn't know had happened.

oh really - that's surprising... I've run across references to it a few times over recent weeks. Oh wait! That's right... it's received no/minimal press coverage. Unlike, of course, what happened when the initial quote came forward.

so what you're saying is that now you're aware of the updated quote, you'll do the right thing and give equal time/notice to the updated quote from Phil Jones... is that what you're saying?

P.S. Rumour has it that I'm highly favoured to win the Most Outstanding Poster award for this year as well.

ya, ya - I missed seeing your present signature for months on end when I had you on ignore - of course, I was quite surprised and wondered how I'd missed the nominations, campaigning and election. I was completely flabbergasted when someone later wrote a snarky comment about you having nominated and elected yourself for those awards... say it ain't so... buddy, c'mon... say it ain't so!

[bloodyminded]

Exactly. I just don't understand the alarmist war on science.

??

You "don't understand" the very view you hold? Not surprising.

[Shady]

of course, you don't even have the basic wherewithal to understand principles of proper trending...

Trending had nothing to do with it. I was stating a fact.

I've run across references to it a few times over recent weeks.

So because you've run across references to it in recent weeks, other people must have too.

so what you're saying is that now you're aware of the updated quote, you'll do the right thing and give equal time/notice to the updated quote from Phil Jones

I would, but I just can't trust Phil Jones anymore. He's changed his tune too many times for my liking.

I missed seeing your present signature for months on end when I had you on ignore - of course, I was quite surprised and wondered how I'd missed the nominations, campaigning and election.

Yes, my present signature has been there for the last several months. You're ignore/bubble boy behavior prevented you from seeing it earlier. Oh well. Oh, and the nomination/election process is all internal, done behind the scenes of MLW.

[Keepitsimple]

And for months I was correct. The fact that Phil Jones has now "updated" things to assert that the data does show a statistically significant warming only proves my point that that wasn't the case a year ago. So once again, I'm proven correct.

Geez, I'm sorry I didn't provide equal time to something I didn't know had happened.

P.S. Rumour has it that I'm highly favoured to win the Most Outstanding Poster award for this year as well.

Shady - did Waldo provide a link to this Jones' update? I can't seem to find anything on it.........and if it's convincing, I'm surprised it wasn't splashed all over the MSM.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[xul]

Oh God, now the rocket scientists are getting involved. Won't be long until the brain surgeons have their say.

Global Warming Mapped

One warning about this article though - the science might be completely untrustworthy since it is from those guys at NASA. What do they know...

Don't worry. Whether it's ture or not, our almighty and trustworthy pentagon hawks always have a plan---they are able to creat a nuclear winter to counteract the global warming and save the earth from other nations---maybe from Americans themselves as well.

[Bonam]

Don't worry. Whether it's ture or not, our almighty and trustworthy pentagon hawks always have a plan---they are able to creat a nuclear winter to counteract the global warming and save the earth from other nations---maybe from Americans themselves as well.

If we had to use extreme measures orbital mirrors or lenses would be preferable to mass detonations of nuclear warheads.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If we had to use extreme measures orbital mirrors or lenses would be preferable to mass detonations of nuclear warheads.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Shwa]

If we had to use extreme measures orbital mirrors or lenses would be preferable to mass detonations of nuclear warheads.

Or we could all just turn our refrigerators up on high and open the doors for a few minutes each day in the summer. That should take care of it.

[waldo]

Trending had nothing to do with it. I was stating a fact.

fact? Trending had everything to do with it... what do you think the denier cherry-picked time interval (1995-2009) was all about - hey? Oh my... a warming trend but one not statistically significant to the 95% level! Of course, you didn't know the reference aspects of your parroting then... you don't know them any better today, hey Professor? Parrot is as parrot does!

So because you've run across references to it in recent weeks, other people must have too.

lil' buddy... how could you misconstrue? Ya see, the point being, this time around, when Phil Jones is asked to comment on the statistical significance by including available 2010 data, this latest Phil Jones statement gets no/minimal coverage... for some reason the same denialsphere that trumpeted his original statement on into the mainstream media has been mute on giving the statistically significant warming of the CRU dataset any coverage - go figure! For some reason, those same enabling British tabloid "journalists" from the first go-around have gone mute - go figure!

of course, I prompted you on this exact scenario a few times in the past when you were in your British tabloid press parroting glory, didn't I Shady? I could replay those MLW posts for you, if you'd like... you know, the posts where I highlighted the point that simply adding an additional year (1994) to the cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval question, would allow the CRU data to meet the 95% statistically significant warming level... you know, the posts where I taunted you about the scenario of 2010's projected warming being added into that cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval, shifting the interval to include 2010 data (1995-2010). So... it's come to pass... we have the 2010 warming projection come to pass... Phil Jones is asked for an update... and you choose to ignore his update statement this time. How convenient for you - hey Shady? Of course, we're really just talking percentage points here... the CRU data over that initial cherry-picked 1995-2009 data interval did meet the 90% statistically significant level... falling short of the 95% level buy just a couple of percentage points. But that was enough for you/denialsphere and enabling British tabloid journalists to proclaim, "warming has ended"... "there's been no warming"!!! Distort, and/or fabricate, and/or cast doubt... i.e.; the denier playbook.

I would, but I just can't trust Phil Jones anymore. He's changed his tune too many times for my liking.

whaaa! "For your liking"! Interesting... the denier cherry-picked interval question fed to the BBC reporter, was designed to attempt to 'catch' Phil Jones in "a lie"... the data is all public domain, and obviously the trends can be run by anyone, every time a new monthly release of data is issued. So what did Phil Jones do that first time around when asked that question in the February 2010 BBC interview?... he provided the facts... the facts you were more than willing to accept last time - hey? Did I mention the new interval period (1995-2010) warming, as statistically significant, has been independently corroborated… you know… independent corroboration of the statistically significant warming trend of the public domain CRU data (the data, as created by the UK’s National Weather Service (the Met Office))?

what gives, hey Shady? You accept the Phil Jones initial statement and ran with... big time... yet, for some strange reason you seem hesitant to now acknowledge the 95% statistically significant warming of the CRU data and assign a new Phil Jones quote to your MLW signature advising of same... just like you did the first go-around. How long did you parrot that initial quote in your MLW signature - hey Shady? 3 months? Probably closer to 6 months - hey?

of course, you (and Simple) had no difficulty in ignoring all the other global temperature records from NASA, from NOAA, from JMA, etc.; ... ignoring all those other global records that did/do meet the 95% statistically significant warming level (even over that same cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval period). That's right - you ignored them all, just so you could parrot the denier lines that "there's been no warming"... that "warming has ended". Of course you did - that's what parrots do... parrot is as parrot does - hey Professor?

[waldo]

Shady - did Waldo provide a link to this Jones' update? I can't seem to find anything on it.........and if it's convincing, I'm surprised it wasn't splashed all over the MSM.

Simple... I'm aghast! You're surprised! Well, of course, that first go-around, there were a brazillion denier blogs beating the drum over that initial Phil Jones statement... you had tabloid/fake enabling "journalists" pushing it on up into the mainstream. This time around with the same question/update statement from Phil Jones? Not so much, hey? But it's out there - you just need to get away from your usual denier sources... oh wait... here's a reference for ya - this is a great article, as it hits a lot of the key points around tabloid journalism, keying on one of your and Shady's key go-to sources from the past, the British tabloid journalist (David Rose). Also highlighted in the article is a direct reference to the recently created "Climate Science Rapid Response Team"... you know, the denier's worst nightmare come to pass - where scientists have had enough and decided to come together and offer an outlet/service for media & government officials to directly ask working scientists for information/commentary:

The key statement here is 'not statistically significant'. It wasn't for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level." [What this means is that the warming trend for the past few years previously met a lower test of statistical significance. With addition of the results so far for 2010, it now meets the higher test

so... Simple... does this mean you'll retract your last parroting, from a few days ago, of that Phil Jones initial statement? Does this mean we won't have you beaking off anymore about "statistically insignificant warming"?

equally, as you've been asked in the past, as you've ignored in the past... why did you/why would you, choose to ignore all the other global temperature records - the one's that did/do show statistically significant warming to the 95% level (even for the cherry-picked 1995-2009 time period), in favour of your want/desire to key on the initial Phil Jones statement concerning CRU data trending over a purposely crafted/cherry-picked time period? You know... the CRU data that historically shows the least warming of all global temperature records (as it doesn't include data from the Arctic - where the earth's greatest warming has occurred in the relatively recent period of warming). Oh, wait... that's right... see denier playbook - see, distort, and/or fabricate, and/or cast doubt! Hey, Simple?

[Shady]

here's a reference for ya

Looks like it's from the UK. Funny how you criticize people for linking to UK sources, like the Guardian, except when they write something you agree with. Then your tune quickly changes. Talk about cherrypicking!

(even for the cherry-picked 1995-2009 time period

As opposed to the alarmist cherry-picked time frame, of the last several decades. You do realize the earth is what, 4 billion years old? Does the alarmist cherry-picked time period ever include the MWP? Nope. Cause it blows up their entire alarmist argument.

Btw, while you're here. Are you still a big supporter of China's clean coal initiatives? If so, would you also support initiatives in North America?

[waldo]

Looks like it's from the UK. Funny how you criticize people for linking to UK sources, like the Guardian, except when they write something you agree with. Then your tune quickly changes. Talk about cherrypicking!

hey laughing boy... find any occurrence where I've criticized anyone for referencing a Guardian article... you don't seem to know your British papers. Certainly, the Guardian doesn't fall into the categories of your past go-to gaggle of British tabloids... where you repeatedly quoted the fabrications and outright lies from the likes of tabloid "journalists", David Rose, from Jonathan Leake, etc.

As opposed to the alarmist cherry-picked time frame, of the last several decades. You do realize the earth is what, 4 billion years old? Does the alarmist cherry-picked time period ever include the MWP? Nope. Cause it blows up their entire alarmist argument.

the time-frame in question is actually considered to be from 1850 to present... don't let facts get in your way - hey? Would you like me to, once again, replay that ready bookmarked MLW post where you fail to answer the many questions concerning the MWP... it's an easy go-to... should I re-play that post for you - hey?

Btw, while you're here. Are you still a big supporter of China's clean coal initiatives? If so, would you also support initiatives in North America?

same answer as last time, lil' buddy... I see you couldn't be bothered to read the post references I made... where your answer lies. Reading is tough for you - hey, Professor?

[Shady]

hey laughing boy... find any occurrence where I've criticized anyone for referencing a Guardian article... you don't seem to know your British papers. Certainly, the Guardian doesn't fall into the categories of your past go-to gaggle of British tabloids... where you repeatedly quoted the fabrications and outright lies from the likes of tabloid "journalists", David Rose, from Jonathan Leake, etc.

You did several times. You also told people not to link to blogs. But you're constantly linking to alarmist blogs all the time.

the time-frame in question is actually considered to be from 1850 to present... don't let facts get in your way - hey? Would you like me to, once again, replay that ready bookmarked MLW post where you fail to answer the many questions concerning the MWP... it's an easy go-to... should I re-play that post for you - hey?

How about you just tell us what caused the MWP?

same answer as last time, lil' buddy... I see you couldn't be bothered to read the post references I made... where your answer lies. Reading is tough for you - hey, Professor?

You didn't address the issue. In your haste to defend the Chinese coal plant construction, you inadvertently supported their clean coal initiatives. But when asked whether you'd support similar initiatives in North America, you clam up. Because you know it's really against your orthodoxy. It's quite the pretzel you've twisted yourself in. I love it!

[waldo]

hey laughing boy... find any occurrence where I've criticized anyone for referencing a Guardian article... you don't seem to know your British papers. Certainly, the Guardian doesn't fall into the categories of your past go-to gaggle of British tabloids... where you repeatedly quoted the fabrications and outright lies from the likes of tabloid "journalists", David Rose, from Jonathan Leake, etc.

You did several times. You also told people not to link to blogs. But you're constantly linking to alarmist blogs all the time.

no - your desperation is shining through... like I said, the only British papers you know are your go-to tabloid rags...the Guardian is certainly a cut above the Daily Mail Fail and the Sunday Times... you know, the rags you kept sourcing for your fabricating/distorting/lying "journalists", David Rose, Jonathan Leake, etc. And, no again, lying Professor... I do, on occasion, reference a blog; however, usually, I'm sourcing directly from published papers, scientific organizations, etc. I've most certainly never suggested anyone not link to blogs... why are you lying again? I quite revel in the absurdity of parroting lightweights, like yourself, linking to denier blogs... particularly when you haven't even the most basic of understanding around what you're presuming to parrot.

the time-frame in question is actually considered to be from 1850 to present... don't let facts get in your way - hey? Would you like me to, once again, replay that ready bookmarked MLW post where you fail to answer the many questions concerning the MWP... it's an easy go-to... should I re-play that post for you - hey?

How about you just tell us what caused the MWP?

ah yes... the following quote-stream, as an easy go-to bookmark - ready and waiting for each time you beak-off about the MWP! Now you did proclaim you were undertaking some in-depth research... that you were accumulating a, "vault of information". Are you prepared to release the Shadyworks yet? I mean, after all... you'll note the captured statement that appears at the end of this quote stream - hey? You know... the March 15 statement where you say you'll address the following... but that, "it will take some time to process". March 15! Do you have a target finish date Professor?

the MWP related questions Shady continues to ignore... refuses to answer... while he continues to bluster about the MWP. Yes, most certainly... Shady <=> intellectually dishonest

And regarding timestamps, in my universe, March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM is earlier than March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information". Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

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?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

same answer as last time, lil' buddy... I see you couldn't be bothered to read the post references I made... where your answer lies. Reading is tough for you - hey, Professor?

You didn't address the issue. In your haste to defend the Chinese coal plant construction, you inadvertently supported their clean coal initiatives. But when asked whether you'd support similar initiatives in North America, you clam up. Because you know it's really against your orthodoxy. It's quite the pretzel you've twisted yourself in. I love it!

no - certainly not. Of course, what you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the ongoing, week-by-week, active decommissioning of old inefficient coal plants in China - replaced by newer more efficient plants... actively working towards 100% emission free CCS solutions... with the world's first active installation/deployment of this ground-breaking technological solution underway, soon to complete. Riddle me this, Professor... if the Republicans get their way with blocking the EPA, just what active decommissioning of inefficient coal plants do you think will occur in the U.S.?

as I said, as I continue to repeat, as I will continue to repeat, I pointed you to 2 lengthy posts I wrote on China, particularly highlighting it's world leading directions and deployments of sustainable energy solutions, its most recent series of 5 year plans, where coal fits and how it is being funded (percentage wise and on an ever decreasing level) in relation to all other strategies China is deploying. You were also advised to search MLW for several of my posts advocating for very particular mitigation/adaption solutions, emphasizing technology requirements/gaps, ala the AEI 40+ year Roadmap. Several of those AEI Roadmap related posts provide significant detail on the balance of technology requirements, including the fit/need for coal overall and CCS, in particular... and, again, in those China related posts I've highlighted the world-leading CCS technology initiatives that China is engaged in... actively engaged in. Your great difficulty is you simply refuse to read... you also refuse to answer the many questions I've asked of you concerning your definition of clean coal, particularly as it relates to China versus U.S. active deployments, why you refuse to acknowledge the significant level of effective emission outsourcing by Western countries to China, what actual active deployment/intent for new coal plants even exists in the U.S., etc. Just continue to be the lightweight you are - hey Professor... your ongoing comic relief is appreciated!

[Keepitsimple]

Looks like it's from the UK. Funny how you criticize people for linking to UK sources, like the Guardian, except when they write something you agree with. Then your tune quickly changes. Talk about cherrypicking!

I was expecting better from Waldo. The only cite he could find is from George Monbiot's BLOG? That explains why the MSM never reported it. So Phil Jones' official statement still stands - no significant warming (although there WAS a little bit) since 1995. In itself, Waldo's faux-pas is not a big deal.....but it's an indication of the cumulative desperation that has affected the Alarmist community as their maniacal shouts of "Deniers" start to fall on deaf ears. The debate is only beginning.