2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

[jdobbin]

But if the caribou and musk ox are pawing the ground (cooling) or the streets of lower Manhattan are under water (warming) there wouldn't be much choice, presumably?

I dunno. Confronted by the chimneys of Auschwitz, some people still think they are bakery ovens.

People who deny things continue to do so even when confronted by evidence to the contrary.

A fair amount of people here think September 11 was a Bush contrivance.

[sunsettommy]

B.Max in response to your post #73.

The link you provided is terrible.It has no reference point and I could not see the numbers you claimed in it.

Where did you get that link anyway.I have not been able to find it at Milloys website.

I did find this that matched your copying:

"NCDC Global Land Near-Surface Anomaly:

November 2006: +0.77 °C

Peak recorded anomaly:

February, 2002: +1.62 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.85 °C

Last update: December 18, 2006"

But this part is not there:

"1998 - 9.5977833

2001 - 9.2623833

- .3354

2002 - 9.365583

- .2322003"

Where did you get them?

However since you were using the NCDC data to make your claims.Lets take a good look at what they say year to year starting year 2000:

Global temperatures in 2000 were 0.39C (0.7F) above the long-term (1880-1999) average*, the sixth warmest year on record (see graph above). The only years warmer were 1998, 1997, 1995, 1990 and 1999. Land temperatures were 0.59C (1.1F) above average and ocean temperatures 0.30C (0.5F) above the 1880-1999 mean. A strong La Nina at the beginning of 2000 weakened during July and August, but was still evident at year's end. Cooler than normal temperatures throughout the eastern equatorial Pacific held down temperatures in the tropics. But temperatures in the non-tropical Northern Hemisphere continued to average near record levels. Temperatures north of 20N were the third warmest on record, 0.69C above average. Annual anomalies in excess of 1.0C (1.8F) were widespread across Canada, Scandinavia, and much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...00/ann/ann.html

Year 2001:

It is a PDF.Go to page 4 and see that they say it is a very warm year.Well above the average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../ann/annsum.pdf

Year 2002:

Global Temperatures

Global temperatures in 2002 were 0.56°C (1.01°F)* above the long-term (1880-2001) average**, which places 2002 as the second warmest year on record. The only warmer year was 1998 in which a strong El Niño contributed to higher global temperatures. Land temperatures were 0.87°C (1.57°F)* above average and ocean temperatures 0.42°C (0.76°F)* above the 1880-2001 mean. Both land and ocean temperature ranks as second warmest on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../ann/ann02.html

Year 2003:

Global Temperatures

Global temperatures in 2003 were 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the long-term (1880-2003) average**, ranking 2003 the second warmest year on record, which tied 2002. The warmest year on record is 1998 with an anomaly of +0.63°C (+1.13°F). Land temperatures in 2003 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking third in the period of record while ocean temperatures ranked as second warmest with 0.44°C (0.80°F) above the 1880-2003 mean.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html

Year 2004:

Global Temperatures

Global temperatures in 2004 were 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the long-term (1880-2003) average**, ranking 2004 the fourth warmest year on record. The warmest year on record is 1998, having an anomaly of 0.63°C (1.13°F), followed by 2002 and 2003 both having an anomaly of 0.56°C (1.01°F). Land temperatures in 2004 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking fourth in the period of record while ocean temperatures were third warmest with 0.42°C (0.76°F) above the 1880-2003 mean.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html

Year 2005:

Global Temperatures

The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998. (below right)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html

You have no case since they specifically say it warmer than average EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

Unless you can salvage your still unsupported claim in post # 73 and all other previous postings on this matter of a claimed cooling trend since 1998.

I will begin to consider you delusional.

[B. Max]

B.Max in response to your post #73.

The link you provided is terrible.It has no reference point and I could not see the numbers you claimed in it.

Where did you get that link anyway.I have not been able to find it at Milloys website.

I did find this that matched your copying:

"NCDC Global Land Near-Surface Anomaly:

November 2006: +0.77 °C

Peak recorded anomaly:

February, 2002: +1.62 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.85 °C

Last update: December 18, 2006"

But this part is not there:

"1998 - 9.5977833

2001 - 9.2623833

- .3354

2002 - 9.365583

- .2322003"

Where did you get them?

This is where it comes from. I have no problem seeing it. Go to the graph I posted and at the bottom it says Sources, cites and data. then go to the bottom and click on Land Mean. Remeber the numbers about are the averages for a given year. Not peak anomalies.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsLand.csv

This is a good one. I read that some where else. It would seem as if you don't get the desired number you are looking for, just change the rules.

Global Temperatures

The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998. (below right)

[shoggoth]

This is a good one. I read that some where else. It would seem as if you don't get the desired number you are looking for, just change the rules.

That's not a workable strategy in the long term so it's hard to imagine any benefit of starting a deception like that. Afterall if they fudged 2005 to be warmer than 1998 to fake a continuing warming trend that didn't actually exist then it's going to be even harder for them to make years in the future look warmer than 2005. It's going to look especially suspicious when their trend goes up over the next 30 years while other trends compiled by other groups are flat. They will be making years about a half degree warmer than they actually were. Someone would notice. Also 1998 was warm because of an el nino. Without that 1998 probably would no doubt been cooler than 2005 anyway. As el nino events occur on top of the warming trend, and are not part of it, therefore there's no contradiction between 1998 being a record warm year so far and there being a warming trend.

The CRU has 1998 as the warmest on record, mainly because they use a different method from ncdc. Notice the error bars though, around +-0.1C for recent years. Also at the bottom of the first link there is a graph showing the strong 1998 el nino that corresponds with the high temperature that year.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...emperature.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

It's not suprising that different methodologies come up with slightly different temperatures for different years. That's why it's more relevant to look at the statistics involving multiple years rather than individual years. The running average lines on these graphs are probably the most useful thing for visualizing trends.

[B. Max]

That's not a workable strategy in the long term

.

I read an article some where the other day and I didn't keep it, that stated 2002 has now been adjusted temperature wise so that it is now equal to 1998. If they are making adjustments or using better measurements then all should be adjusted likewise.

No matter, I hope they get this thing working right.

http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.htm

[sunsettommy]

Referring to your post # 78,

B.Max I did look them up and fail to see how you get the numbers.

You will have to elaborate since it is not apparent to me.

Just a long column of numbers without an explanation is not a good idea anyway.

Meanwhile when will you admit that Bob Cook was wrong in using a source that in no way supports his claim of a cooling since 1998?

[B. Max]

Referring to your post # 78,

B.Max I did look them up and fail to see how you get the numbers.

You will have to elaborate since it is not apparent to me.

Just a long column of numbers without an explanation is not a good idea anyway.

Meanwhile when will you admit that Bob Cook was wrong in using a source that in no way supports his claim of a cooling since 1998?

If you total up the numbers for each month and divide them by twelve that gives you the average temperature for that year. Does it not?

I don't know what source Carter used. When I asked him about it, he said that that graph was probaly something supplied by Hansen. Which would indicate that was not the source he used. Other than I don't know anything about it.