* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZUDcO1I
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.
The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZUT4nyx
Well, well, Senator Inhofe might be right after all.
Did you even read the article?
Likely not. If you look at the timing of posts 1 and 2, you'll notice they're not much more than a minute apart. Unless you're Mavis Beacon, that's a cut/paste job.
Credibility removed. Wait, you have had to have had some for it to be removed. I'm sorry.
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2010, 10:15:27 PM
Likely not. If you look at the timing of posts 1 and 2, you'll notice they're not much more than a minute apart. Unless you're Mavis Beacon, that's a cut/paste job.
Credibility removed. Wait, you have had to have had some for it to be removed. I'm sorry.
The article isn't all that long.
I found this regarding the Medieval Warming Period to be interesting:
Quote
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZoFw3rQ
Jones knows how to tap dance pretty good.
Given that this is coming from the Daily Mail, which have been happy in the past to run completely unverified stories regarding the supposed falsehood of global warming in general, much less it being caused by man, I'm inclined to dismiss anything coming from that paper on this subject out of hand without corroboration from other sources.
Edited to add:
Oh, look, the Daily Mail are a bunch of liars:
Quote
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
And unreliablesource, your headline sucks. What he said was that the level of warming over the period since 1995 has not been drastic enough to assign it statistical significance to the 95% level of confidence at this point (statistically, you need either a longer observation period or a more drastic change to be certain what you are seeing isn't noise), but that there has certainly been warming both in that period and since the beginning of recordkeeping.
This is yet another example of politics obscuring what climate scientists actually say in an effort to mislead the public about the true nature of the scientific consensus on the matter.
Oh, and even if the set of data this guy worked on is complete trash, there are data sets collected by NOAA/NWS and others that agree quite closely. Nice try, though.
For those interested, perhaps the link below is more credible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Read it, decide for yourself.
There are so many ways for people (the media and politicians included) to get tripped up on this subject. We are so often influenced by sound bites and overly simplified, one dimensional, explanations or concepts. We have spoken many times on here as to the difference between weather and climate for instance. I have tried many times to explain how things can be both cooling and warming at the same time lol. For instance if over the last decade the solar cycle and other cycles (plus volcanoes and carbon sinks etc) were exerting a cooling effect on the earth and man-made CO2 was exerting a warming effect... the former could have been measurably larger (if you were taking the temperature of the earth) than the latter over that time period. This would mask any "signal" in a temperature trend. But that doesnt mean that the earth wasnt warming......
It could have been cooler during a time period,,, BUT without the man-made warming it SHOULD have been cooler still. Get it? (ice in the arctic should have been getting even thicker and thus have more to thin during the usual warming cycles as one example of how this could matter over an even longer period) It was warmer than it would have been otherwise due to man, even though it may have been cooler lol. Then when the natural warming trends hit, on top of that you will see the added man-made warming. People "get" that easier than the former for some reason.
All of my explanations are also essentially sound bites and very overly simplified to the effect that they are essentially "less truthful" than they would be otherwise. But I cant teach people the science on here. If you really want to know the subject, you cant rely on media or politicians, or even the short explanations by reputable scientists... You have to get into it, read a lot, and study it yourself. And a lot of people on here admit they do not want to do that, which is perfectly understandable (and apparent in their wording). But understand, your not likely to understand unless you do.
I think there's enough disagreement in the scientific community to allow for doubt of man-made global warming. Since companies and government have identified the issue as an opportunity for profit, jobs growth, and increasing taxes it's easy for cynics to suspect manipulation of data. Add to this drama, hysteria, and half-truths which have been thrown into the mix and it starts looking ridiculous. NYC and Miami under water, dead polar bears anyone?
Is global warming or climate change possible? Absolutely. There have been periods of warming and cooling in the past which bear this out.
How much of what occured in the past was man-made? How much of any current change is man-made? Are we audacious enough to believe that man has harnessed nature to the point that we can affect warming or cooling or to mitigate the supposed effects of man-made warming? Previous warming and cooling cycles happened with much lower population density than we have today and prior to the mass-industrialization of the world.
If we are in a man-made warming mode, how do we know it's CO2 production for certain and simply not increased waste BTU's being released into the atmosphere by more inhabitants of the planet and the heat generated by the increased transportation, energy generation, and industrialization needs created by an ever-increasing population?
Quote from: TheArtist on February 15, 2010, 09:53:58 AM
But understand, your not likely to understand unless you do.
I'm not sure I understand :o
Global Warming/Climate Change has become a religion.
This is not a new religion. Climate Change represents a revitalization of Humanism. It places human action at the center of power, giving man's hand the ultimate ability to create and destroy. Any evidence to the contrary, or fallacy inherent in the GW/CC scriptures is brushed aside as heresy by followers.
GW/CC like other religions has a foundation in fact, and as a religion it serves a basic psychological function. This function helps us to explain events, actions that are beyond our current understanding, so that we may develop behaviors that protect us from harm. In the case of GW/CC we are attempting to take responsibility for our own demise by placing blame on the evils of our productivity. This purpose has been duplicated hundreds of time in hundreds of religions. The story is the same, the profits and demons have simply been updated.
As with any religion GW/CC also affords political advantage, and here is where the danger lies. Religion removes objectivity from politics and causes decisions to be made on behalf of the people without consent. When allowed to mix with politics, religion becomes a tool of pillage. It grants political control over even the most productive of human endeavors.
As challenges and inconsistencies mount against the science that gave birth to GW/CC, followers resist the opportunity to reconsider research or reinforce their opinions. Clerics of the new religion are fighting to hide the flaws and give false witness to followers. The religion itself has become more important than the evidence behind it.
Were this simply science, the research would be duplicable and therefore able to withstand the volley of counter information, but it seems that even the most basic of scientific methodology was abandon on the alter of the new religion, and there is no foundation for the new church.
Now that we see GW/CC faith overshadowing fact, we can recognize it as a religion and are therefore constitutionally obligated to separate the associated philosophy from our government policies.
GW/CC may rise again as a valid science, but until then we cannot allow the priests to make policy.
There is nothing wrong with having faith! GW/CCers have just as much right to their faith as Christians, Muslims and Hindus. We are a nation of multiple faiths and as such we should welcome all. Each faith has something to teach us about our world and how others choose to view it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 10:14:27 AM
If we are in a man-made warming mode, how do we know it's CO2 production for certain and simply not increased waste BTU's being released into the atmosphere by more inhabitants of the planet and the heat generated by the increased transportation, energy generation, and industrialization needs created by an ever-increasing population?
Just to address this specific point, the amount of waste heat dumped into the ecosystem generated by our activities pales in comparison to the amount of energy coming from the sun. I don't have a reference handy, but my recollection is that the energy we get from the sun in a day is something around the amount of energy we produce through all activities in a year.
The Earth receives about 3.8 million exajoules of energy from the Sun each year. We create less than 500 exajoules of energy each year.
Needless to say, increasing the amount of energy from the Sun that remains here on Earth rather than being radiated out into space makes a much larger difference than any amount of energy we can reasonably create at this time. To give an example, if we detonated all of the nuclear weapons in the world arsenal (including the deactivated ones sitting around disassembled in warehouses), that would produce a little over 25 exajoules.
So, heat we produce? Not gonna do much. The only thing our puny civilization can do to increase the heat load of the Earth in any significant way is to engineer it to retain more heat from the Sun.
Edited to add: And suspecting manipulation of data by companies? Don't you think that entrenched interests have more to gain by obfuscating the issue than those in support of the theory of global warming? Several oil companies have already been caught pulling a tobacco, if you will.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2010, 08:38:45 AM
Just to address this specific point, the amount of waste heat dumped into the ecosystem generated by our activities pales in comparison to the amount of energy coming from the sun. I don't have a reference handy, but my recollection is that the energy we get from the sun in a day is something around the amount of energy we produce through all activities in a year.
The Earth receives about 3.8 million exajoules of energy from the Sun each year. We create less than 500 exajoules of energy each year.
Needless to say, increasing the amount of energy from the Sun that remains here on Earth rather than being radiated out into space makes a much larger difference than any amount of energy we can reasonably create at this time. To give an example, if we detonated all of the nuclear weapons in the world arsenal (including the deactivated ones sitting around disassembled in warehouses), that would produce a little over 25 exajoules.
So, heat we produce? Not gonna do much. The only thing our puny civilization can do to increase the heat load of the Earth in any significant way is to engineer it to retain more heat from the Sun.
Nathan is correct. The most common statement made is that the earth receives (after atmospheric filtration) more energy from the sun in one hour than mankind uses in a year. The amount of heat produced through our inefficiencies is minuscule.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2010, 09:44:18 AM
Nathan is correct. The most common statement made is that the earth receives (after atmospheric filtration) more energy from the sun in one hour than mankind uses in a year. The amount of heat produced through our inefficiencies is minuscule.
I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining that I'm speaking along the terms of "heat islands" which have most definitely increased in temperature as population has become more dense. Certainly radiant heat from New York City has no bearing on the South Pole, but if average earth temperatures from rural and urban areas are being used to calculate rates of global warming, heat islands most certainly have an effect.
Some research indicates GISS is not properly accounting for heat islands in it's GW calculations.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
Oh, look, more global warming denier material decimated:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
That's some pretty bald-faced smile right there. ::)
I am beginning to think I would like a little more global warming. Florida could be about twice as big as it is now, so could maybe afford a little place there for retirement.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2010, 07:01:10 PM
Oh, look, more global warming denier material decimated:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
That's some pretty bald-faced smile right there. ::)
An opinion piece about an opinion piece critiquing a trumped up opinion piece. Scholarly material FAIL
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9QsgzPWbcX4/SGP9C1-hEZI/AAAAAAAAABc/2SxX0-F5GXw/s400/inconvenient%2Bfail%2Bcopy.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2010, 09:08:20 PM
An opinion piece about an opinion piece critiquing a trumped up opinion piece. Scholarly material FAIL
I dare say, post of the week candidate?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 23, 2010, 07:24:37 PM
I am beginning to think I would like a little more global warming. Florida could be about twice as big as it is now, so could maybe afford a little place there for retirement.
If you go along with Global
Flooding Warming Climate Change, what we now know as Florida will be smaller. You may, however, get tropical Florida weather and climate right here in Oklahoma. Then you won't have to move to Florida, it will move to you. I don't know where to put all the displaced people from Florida. Maybe Arkansas will take them. The eastern part of Arkansas is low and flat. It could be the new ocean front property.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2010, 09:30:30 PM
If you go along with Global Flooding Warming Climate Change, what we now know as Florida will be smaller. You may, however, get tropical Florida weather and climate right here in Oklahoma. Then you won't have to move to Florida, it will move to you. I don't know where to put all the displaced people from Florida. Maybe Arkansas will take them. The eastern part of Arkansas is low and flat. It could be the new ocean front property.
We could just move them to Fort Chaffee. We did that for the Cubans when Castro warming overwhelmed Cuba.
That's been a total socialism FAIL
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2010, 09:42:36 PM
We could just move them to Fort Chaffee. We did that for the Cubans when Castro warming overwhelmed Cuba.
That's been a total socialism FAIL
But they learned how to keep more 1950s American cars running longer than anywhere else on earth.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2010, 09:08:20 PM
An opinion piece about an opinion piece critiquing a trumped up opinion piece. Scholarly material FAIL
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9QsgzPWbcX4/SGP9C1-hEZI/AAAAAAAAABc/2SxX0-F5GXw/s400/inconvenient%2Bfail%2Bcopy.jpg)
Would you like me to link to the book? :o
Given that Lomborg's book is oft-quoted in denier circles, I dare say that someone going through his references and finding that most of them don't say what Lomborg claims is pretty interesting.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2010, 10:16:50 PM
Would you like me to link to the book? :o
Given that Lomborg's book is oft-quoted in denier circles, I dare say that someone going through his references and finding that most of them don't say what Lomborg claims is pretty interesting.
Link if you like, Nathan
How about all the fraud in Algore's movie, book, Senate speeches, and public speaking engagements? How many times has he been caught gilding the lily? Do you ever question him stretching or entirely lying about what sources he quotes say? And so far as I know, neither Lomborg nor Friel are climatologists that I'm aware of, so I'd give no weight to either of their works on climatological matters.
I know, let's just use bank accounts for a yardstick as to who has more credibility on
global warming er climate change:
Donald Trump worth a paltry $2 bln says it's a hoax, Bill Gates with $50 bln says it's true. Yeah, the guy with a bigger bank account has more credibility.
"Donald Trump wants the Nobel Committee to strip former Vice President Al Gore of his Nobel Peace Prize.
The New York Post reports that the billionaire told a country club crowd of 500 that recent snow storms on the east coast prove that Gore is wrong about global warming:
"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore."
"Gore wants us to clean up our factories... when China and other countries couldn't care less... China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity."
"The Donald" did not include Vancouver's unseasonably warm temperatures and lack of snow in his weather observations.
After last week's record-breaking storms, many scientists went to great lengths to explain that the storms do not disprove climate change. Some even believe that climate change contributed to the storms.
Last Friday, another billionaire, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, went after climate change deniers and explained that climate change and CO2 emissions pose a huge threat to people everywhere.
In 2009, Forbes ranked Bill Gates as the richest American with a net worth of $50 billion. Donald Trump ranked 158 on the same list, with a significantly smaller net worth of $2 billion."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/donald-trump-points-to-sn_n_462834.html
Simply laughable if the implications weren't so severe. We are relying on celebs, billionaires, op-ed journalists, and politicians on climate issues.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2010, 10:58:13 PM
How about all the fraud in Algore's movie, book, Senate speeches, and public speaking engagements? How many times has he been caught gilding the lily? Do you ever question him stretching or entirely lying about what sources he quotes say? And so far as I know, neither Lomborg nor Friel are climatologists that I'm aware of, so I'd give no weight to either of their works on climatological matters.
...
Simply laughable if the implications weren't so severe. We are relying on celebs, billionaires, op-ed journalists, and politicians on climate issues.
Lomberg claimed to be citing studies in support of his claims. He was not. Many people used his claims as "evidence" that global warming is not real.
Personally, I don't listen to pundits, except when they reference scientific studies.
I agree that the whole thing has become so politicized it's stupid. So stupid people claim that snowstorms on the east coast in an El Nino (and PDO+) year are somehow proof of it not existing. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't grasp the difference between climate and weather. As Rachel Maddow said the other day (I was sick, my options were limited!), it's like saying that a desert isn't a desert because it happened to rain one day.
I think we can all agree that anybody who says such stupid things should not be trusted on the subject. Being honestly incorrect is one thing. Being so stupid as to think a snowstorm disproves global warming is another thing entirely.
Apopros of nothing, if the el nino and pdo hold through the summer, we should have a reasonably pleasant time of it this year, if I'm remembering my climatology correctly.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2010, 11:14:13 PM
Lomberg claimed to be citing studies in support of his claims. He was not. Many people used his claims as "evidence" that global warming is not real.
Personally, I don't listen to pundits, except when they reference scientific studies.
I agree that the whole thing has become so politicized it's stupid. So stupid people claim that snowstorms on the east coast in an El Nino (and PDO+) year are somehow proof of it not existing. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't grasp the difference between climate and weather. As Rachel Maddow said the other day (I was sick, my options were limited!), it's like saying that a desert isn't a desert because it happened to rain one day.
I think we can all agree that anybody who says such stupid things should not be trusted on the subject. Being honestly incorrect is one thing. Being so stupid as to think a snowstorm disproves global warming is another thing entirely.
Apopros of nothing, if the el nino and pdo hold through the summer, we should have a reasonably pleasant time of it this year, if I'm remembering my climatology correctly.
Yeah, imagine a new record for lack of ice melt reported in Antartica, by glaciologists, being used as a basis for
global warming er climate change existing.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2010, 11:52:00 PM
Yeah, imagine a new record for lack of ice melt reported in Antartica, by glaciologists, being used as a basis for global warming er climate change existing.
Once again, weather overwhelms the overall trend. ;)
I was wondering how long it took for weather patterns to become climate so I looked it up.
Climate vs. Weather for those who don't feel like looking it up:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
"What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.
Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.
When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.
For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate."
Nathan: I hope you find this to be an acceptable source.
Conan,
Nathan is too far gone, I don't think he can be brought back from the dark side of the Force. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 24, 2010, 12:22:11 PM
Conan,
Nathan is too far gone, I don't think he can be brought back from the dark side of the Force. ;D
Yeah, I think the lure is somewhere in his lower G.I. now.
I'd be happy if the ice melt trend in Antarctica keeps up. It'll be interesting to see how the Arctic fares in the coming summer. I'll be happy if the NW Passage doesn't open up entirely again this year.
Give me a few years of cooler global average temperatures, and I'll reconsider my position. Happily, mind you. I'd rather be wrong about something with such painful effects. The available evidence just doesn't support that position at this time.
The available evidence is a group grope at this time because there are too many competing agendas. An equally good case can be made for or against GW based on available data.
Nathan,
I think we should all agree that we respect your beliefs. We mean no disrespect, we are simply not converts.
A little over 1,000 years ago the Vikings were raising crops in Greenland, and temperatures in that region were on average 1 degree warmer than they are now. About 400 years ago they abandon these lands as temperatures dropped by a degree on average. We have had Ice Ages, Little Ice Ages, freezing and thawing of the NW passage and none track with CO2 measurements.
In the last 20 years grant upon grant has funded study upon study to show that warming is occurring and is our fault. Many of us accepted this on science. Now we learn that data was manipulated or created to support the theory, rather than to test the theory. Science was being manipulated to generate grant money. We recognize that GWCC is no longer within the realm of science. It is now all politics and faith (Religion and Force). To the politician it is a tool of pillage and control and its ministers were able to amass grand fortunes from the devout.
Yes, the current temperature tracks with human CO2 emissions, but it is not possible for us to make a direct correlation without relying on faith. There are basically two flaws in the theory that cannot be resolved. First, we have had significant temperature fluctuations independent of CO2 trends. Second, human CO2 emission is only a very small percentage of the overall increase, and we cannot determine if the increase in temperature causes the increase in CO2 (through increased biological activity), or vise versa.
Temperature fluctuations on Earth also track with is solar activity. The solar correlation is independent of CO2 levels, and tracks with far more agility over short term trends. NASA, very quietly (so as not to upset the GWCCers), launched the satellite "Glory" late last year to better forecast solar activity and research the correlation.
Don't be discouraged Nathan. When the fossil record offered nearly inconvertible evidence to the theory of evolution over creation, the vast numbers of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus continued to practice their faith. I am hopeful that people of the GWCC faith, like yourself, have the strength to continue in light of the recent blasphemy. Clean energy, lower emissions, and more efficiency in our use of resources is still very important, and we are naturally moving in that direction, but most of us are just not willing to take the vow of poverty necessary to convert to your faith. I guess we simply lack the piety.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 24, 2010, 02:55:22 PM
Nathan,
A little over 1,000 years ago the Vikings were raising crops in Greenland...
To the politician it is a tool of pillage and control and its ministers were able to amass grand fortunes from the devout.
Okay, now that's just not true, the Vikings weren't formed until 1961.
And I've got your tool of pillage...
(Self disclosure- I did try to watch "An Inconvenient Truth the other night. Sorry, that's the worst collection of claptrap I've seen).
Something I would like to present from Professor Phil (Hockey Stick) Jones' interview with the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
"Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend Significance
(Degrees C
per decade)
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."
(I had to adjust the column headings a bit to fit this format.)
I would like to add to the answer to C:
The negative trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
I agree that we need more than 5 years to establish a trend. What I do find significant is the change from +.12 to -.12 Deg C per Decade. If the trend was +.24 deg C/decade, the trend would be well into the significant range given a few years. I find the change in slope of the trend and the quantity of the change to be potentially significant if it continues. Time will tell.
NASA launched a site today discussing Global Warming.
Interesting read:
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/)
Definitely an interesting read. Until there is an agreed-upon international standard for quantifying and analyzing data, there's no chance of a consensus on this. I also look at it as NASA having a vested interest in this. So long as they are involved in the gathering and analysis of the data and they can create the appearance of being needed due to a crisis they can remain a relevant bureaucracy. Much like convoluted tax codes necessitate a large IRS.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=248
"2. Why does GISS get a different answer than the Met Office Hadley Centre [a U.K. climate research group that also performs analysis of global temperatures]?
It's mainly related to the way the weather station data is extrapolated. The Hadley Centre uses basically the same datasets as GISS, for example, but it doesn't fill in large parts of the Arctic and Antarctic regions where fixed monitoring stations don't exist. Instead of leaving those areas out from our analysis, you can use numbers from the nearest available stations, as long as they are within 740 miles (1,200 kilometers). Overall, this gives the GISS product more complete coverage of the Earth's polar regions.
The assumption involved in this is simply that the Arctic Ocean as a whole is warming at the average of the stations around it. What people forget is that if you don't put any values in for the areas where stations are sparse, then when you go to calculate the mean temperature for the globe, you're actually assuming that the Arctic is warming at the same rate as the global average. So, either way you are making an assumption.
Which one of those is the better assumption? Given all the changes we've observed in the Arctic sea ice with satellites, we believe it's better to assume the Arctic Ocean is changing at the same rate as the other stations around the Arctic. That's given GISS a slightly larger warming, particularly in the last couple of years, relative to the Hadley Centre."
Ooopsss! Must have been the absinthe I was drinking...
I need an ice age so Florida will be bigger!
I'm waiting for the report some day of:
"Scientists baffled by unexpected 10 year cooling cycle during period of global warming"
(http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sky-is-falling.jpg)